Talk:Intelligent dance music/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Deletion

This article (as well as Electronica and a few others) will be deleted one day. It's simply ridicolous that slang terms can reach the status of encyclopedic terms. IDM is popular in many p2p networks, and some music-zines, but it is not a new music genre, or a genre that differs from not-commercial techno.Dr. Who 02:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this a prediction or a threat? Exactly what is unencylopedic about slang? Please note that IDM is not just popular among your limited list, but that the article contains citations to AllMusicGuide and other sources. Hyacinth 02:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Allmusicguide is not an academic-recognized and verifiable source of information, indeed many reviews are made by common internet users, not by reputable journalists or academics. Please let me know who and when decided that all slang words are usually included in encyclopedias; Wikipedia is not a dictionary, this is obviously true. Though a given word is commonly used, it doesn't mean that such word refers to a commonly agreed truth. There are many people around claiming that the term IDM is just a joke. IDM fans have some serious troubles in admitting that IDM musicians are playing discomusic, dancemusic, and are not the Kraftwerk. What's wrong with the words disco, dance and techno? Dr. Who 02:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. IDM seems to be the word replacing the notion "intelligent techno" which was commonly used for all the artists not fitting into one of the established categories ten years ago. And disco, dance and techno are three of these categories used in the 90s but no more common today. 195.46.251.215 18:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

History

I want to put a nuclear bomb in the history section but I will be stopped as the writing is so beautiful. I cannot find sources. Who can help? fufufufu ^^ nobu --Susume-eat 12:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Kaboom, the nuclear bomb has explode. One thing, will you return that writing? Please do, with the wonderful proofs and sources. :-) I can't wait. --124.110.162.113 11:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC) nobu

I cant wait that you fans begin to understand that this article and many similar ones should fit in a music scene-music movement category, besides belonging to "use of music technology". These things are not music genres. I'm not diminishing or trying to denigrate the valiue of such movements, of ppl involved and of this/these articles, just pleaz llet's call things with their own names.--Doktor Who 12:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms of the name

Half of the article should not be devoted to "criticism" sections, particularly not just random quotes thrown together in an incoherent manner - Intgr

It's really bizarre for the article to be about criticisms of the name. Look at the archive, there was a very good history of IDM subarticle there that has now been added to the article. As far as the criticism section goes, it's not so bad because it represents what the musicians are saying in the press. It seems that the name IDM is universally disliked by the most famous artists who have been labelled with the term. That should be represented by Wikipedia. The real problem is the lack of information for the other sections of the article. A history section was recently added that was very vague. It has been replaced with the old article. The new section was good but vague, so let's see how we can join them together coherently. PS I personally think talking here and saying what we think is a better way of dealing with our concerns than pasting warnings boxes that clutter the article. This article is a little bizarre, and it does need spring cleaning and a paintjob. Learnstraight 14:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough about warning boxes, but I really do find it bad. Surely the quotes can be summed up in proper prose; right now these sections are exclusively made up out of quotes, all of which repeat the same thought. They contain little information, but comprise a large part of the article. -- intgr [talk] 16:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

british

shouldnt be noted that this genre is from england, like trip hop? --200.73.179.43 (talk) 03:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

trip hop came from bristol. idm came from the idm discussion list. idm came from the internet, not england.Tonyfey (talk) 11:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC) you mean that the term came from the discussion list, right? anyway my 2p on this: idm is the use of edm templates when one is no longer making music for the dance floor. it's obvious that novel uses of edm templates are then easier.

Fair use rationale for Image:WarpAI.jpg

Image:WarpAI.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Summer 2008

Discuss new edits here :-) Wow, some activity, let's be friendly and work together —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chocolate Orange (talk • contribs) 17:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC) We really need to write about some modern IDM and have this article expand to be about music. I'm going to work on some stuff and add it later, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chocolate Orange (talk • contribs) 08:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

you might want to take a look at this article, and this one, I simply haven't had time to take what's useful out of it but it deals with artists that were at the time (1995) being described as electronica and then later IDM Semitransgenic (talk) 13:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, looks great! Chocolate Orange (talk) 13:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Where are citations needed? What unsourced material needs challenging? Where is the original research? How can we balance the viewpoints? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.210.130.89 (talk) 23:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Please have a look at the relevant policy/guideline pages: WP:V, WP:OR, WP:POV. (WP:STYLE might also be helpful) -- intgr [talk] 09:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

"A Paragon"

"Autechre, a paragon of IDM"

Is that right? 58.165.201.8 (talk) 07:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

pretentious english

luckily i have corrected some poor fine writing on the lead. fine writing means when the writer tries silly big words to sound more clever than she is. young narcissistic students sadly have this problem all the time in my class i teach. theresa couple more mistakes i can correct later. cest la vi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by American Heroe (talk • contribs) 21:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Sadly it appears your corrections have been reverted. The lead is farkin` embarrassing. "post techno" is exactly what the fuck? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.193.184.118 (talk)

Please watch your language. Please also check the source cited if you have doubts about validity. The disputed entries appear to conform to WP:VER guidelines so are therefore deemed admissable. Semitransgenic (talk) 13:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You're the one who should watch his language because you reverted two corrections to your abysmal English writing in this very article. You should look up the term "fine writing" like American Heroe said because it's childish and neither encyclopaedic not intelligent. Don't be so clingy onto your own words. Everyone can edit Wikipedia. Grow up a bit. It's the encyclopaedia for all IDM fans, not only Semitransgenic. If you want to use such bad writing you must make your own personal website. WATMM guy (talk) 14:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

With due appreciation of your opinion, I kindly ask you to refrain from making personal attacks, it's unbecoming, and largely unnecessary. The act is also in contravention of Wikipedia guidelines. Please do review WP:NPA when you have time. Please also let me clarify something, they are not 'my' words. Please read the source material and take the time to contextualise the information using musicological rationale. I look forward to your contributions : ) Semitransgenic (talk) 22:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You're still clinging to a badly written sentence despite the accurate criticisms. The problem is the sentence because it needs changing. Please do not hide this poor wording behind a personal attack guideline. I want to change the sentence because it is very poor. I checked the academic references and it seems they are in fact your very words because they don't appear to be quoted on the bottom. The sentence doesn't represent the academic references. Your three arguments about personal attacks, a denial that the choice of words is yours, and big words about musiological rationale appear at first to be a strong argument though on closer inspection they are shown up as the fallacious and false reasoning they objectively are.

WATMM guy (talk) 04:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

He is not "hiding this poor wording behind a personal attack guideline", he is asking you to stop making personal attacks and discuss this in a civil tone. Your phrases like "childish", "not intelligent", "Grow up a bit" is not my idea of a civil discussion. Instead of wasting everyone's time with your insults, you should point out what exactly and why you disagree with. -- intgr [talk] 09:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you being civil here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.127.205 (talk) 10:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

WATMM guy, you are deviating, the contention expressed above relates to the term "post-techno", you will find this is not 'my' invention, admittedly the sentence may have been less articulate than it could have been; it was a quick fix, at a point where other, less accurate information was being passed off as fact. Coming in here and stomping around is simply counter productive so please take the time to consult the literature on the subject and if you feel something is lacking, and you can provide verifiable published sources to support your contributions, you will then be in a position to debate the matter constructively. Thanks you for you comments. Semitransgenic (talk) 13:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

And are you being civil here? Why humiliate a new user? The wikipolicy is be the better man, not respond wiht more of the same. Don't bite the n00bz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.127.205 (talk) 10:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Tags

The article in its current form is WP:OR. There are no verifiable published sources cited with regard to the IDM list history of the term. There are also a number of unsupported assertions, hence the WP:RS. This is problematic in the context of an encyclopedic article. There is also confusion with relation to the presentation of the word IDM as a genre descriptor, as opposed to it being a style of music. True it was initally a descriptor, but it appears to have transcended that position and is considered a style of music (at least by many artists who describe themselves as IDM). For those reasons it is also unbalanced, largely in favour of the IDM list history of the term. Also, the pre-histroy is not dealt with at all. There's more to this than Warp and the 'IDM list' Semitransgenic (talk) 12:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

What is IDM?

"IDM tends to rely upon individualistic experimentation rather than on a particular set of musical characteristics." Wouldn't that mean that IDM is not a genre? IDM IS a genre, so there surely is a better way to describe her! I don't want to delete this line without replacing with awt good —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceefax Jungle Kru (talk • contribs) 11:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

American IDM?

American IDM needs more representation, especially in the lead paragraph. IDM has moved on from Warp Records. It's like a different genre now, to how the lead states it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceefax Jungle Kru (talk • contribs) 11:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Future Sound of London - Room 208.ogg

The image File:Future Sound of London - Room 208.ogg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --17:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Detroit

Ok i can accept most of what this article has to say. What I feel is a glaring omission however, is that in the early influences part, to mention B12 and As One, the Orb and others and make no reference at all to Detroit techno is unfortunate. Detroit techno was what inspired the majority of the first wave of influential "idm" musicians to start making a racket in the first place. When i was reading some of the first interviews ever given by people like Richard James, The Black Dog, B12 etc. i would rarely get through an article without some mention to Detroit techno. The Detroit sound was born out of the marriage of Kraftwerk and the emerging inner city electro sound combined with the early flavourings of Chicago house. The music of Detroit's earliest and most influential originators would often transcend straight ahead techno and venture into a realm of real intelligence that would not be replicated with the same passion or flair for many years to come. To try and track who was influenced by what would be futile, but names such as Derrick May, Juan Atkins, Drexcia, Jeff Mills, Carl Craig and Kevin Saunderson are truly legendary. And that's just the main players. Detroit ushered in such a monumental tsunami of change in the electronic music landscape, that without it's innovation, most of what we listen to today, no matter how many degrees of separation it may be from Detroit, would likely never have gotten made. I didn't feel it proper to alter the actual article because it's quite good, but I post this here for anyone who has not had a chance to discover some of the most forward thinking music made in the past 30 years. If Detroit cannot be considered Intelligent Dance Music, than neither can anything that sprouted forth from it's womb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.0.244 (talk) 10:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

IDM is a preposterous genre name. This much is recognised by all music, aphex twin, and so on. Aphex Twin is influenced by those artists that you listed. IDM as a musical genre are the groups who were influenced by Aphex Twin. If you're calling music IDM then you are on the internet and you are describing music that is influenced by Aphex Twin. The Detroit thing is part of Aphex Twin's history. IDM's history starts with the IDM list.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.103.120.135 (talk) 13:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect redirect

Experimental techno ends up getting redirected to the IDM page. This is horribly wrong. Experimental techno is a musical genre unto its own. If any citation is needed at all, go to AllMusic.com and read up on it. Experimental techno could be said to be a subgenre of IDM, but they are not one in the same. Can anyone possibly fix this? Red 22:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

why dont you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.22.93 (talk) 10:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

IDM production & professional/amateur production

I have changed this section. I am an 'amateur' IDM producer of about 6 years. Not only has software and hardware changed, but this distinction is extremely hard to sustain. Many 'amateur' artists have albums out in the shops, and many 'professional' arists release their materials for free on the internet. I can discern very little difference between high quality and original non-profit material, and profitable materials. Indeed, with the advent of new forms of property rights (e.g. creative commons) and new forms of distribution (internet, etc), the entire article begins to read like it was written by the rules of the late 80s or something.

I have also updated the section on production; this seemed rather dated - and focussed on technology as a reason for a convergence of sound. This contradicted earlier statements about 'copy cat' production.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.74.26.4 (talk) 16:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

merging snare rush?

I dont think its a good idea to merge the snare rush article into the characteristics section. Snare rushes arent restricted to IDM. Trance and other electronic genres use them as well. Besides, they arent really a notable enough part of IDM to include as a significant part of the artile. Maybe a line with a link to the snare rush article would be appropriate, but it would need a reputable source (which I frankly dont think we can find).

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Twelvethirteen (talk • contribs) 01:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Etymology

Before seriously considering deletion of this article, the etymology of the term should be studied. It is not meant to be pejorative! The term "intelligent dance music" doesn't mean that other dance music is "dumb". IDM is an offshoot of 'EBM', or "electronic body music". While EBM is meant to "make your body dance", IDM is meant to "make your mind dance". It has always been used this way to describe the music, and has never had a pejorative meaning among artists and fans alike, in fact many fans also enjoy many other forms of dance music. The music is classified by typically non-danceable beats, but complicated structures, hence the term. 74.70.171.36 04:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

^ Please re-word this and add to the article. At the moment it's a prime candidate for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.205.233 (talk) 11:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The article is not a candidate for deletion. It's survived a deletion nomination, twice, with 100% keep votes! Also it's hard to integrate the above into the article without a source. -- intgr [talk] 17:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

why is this not in the opening graph? way more suitable to the context of the term, in which some find it wholly ambiguous much the same as EBM. And not just peculiar in America? really this depends on the listener, something that isn't nation-specific. The amount of artists who have been unfortunately subscribed to the genre have managed to transcend this ill suited catchall term. With most electronic terms, etymology poorly states in any musicality or or sufficient descriptor of the actual music. The word IDM unfortunately just comes off as being pretentious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.135.128.12 (talk) 11:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Mike P

"No one uses or used it in UK." He means Aphex Twin, Luke Vibert, etc. He doesn't mean last.fm users. I agree a distinction should be made, but I disagree in that Mike P should not be misquoted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceefax Jungle Kru (talk • contribs) 11:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments but lets' look at the original quote: "Further use of the idiom was initiated online with the conception of the IDM mailing list in 1993, which functioned as a forum for discussion on leading IDM artists and Artificial Intelligence. Incidentally, when I questioned Mike Paradinas (µ-Ziq) on his feelings towards the term, he bluntly answered: 'No one uses or used it in UK. Only Americans ever used the term. It was invented by Alan Parry who set up the IDM mailing list'.

First point, the lede is not the place for quotations like this, hence the shortening of the statement. Next the quotation is subject to WP:NPOV, this is one persons opinion. Consider the source also, this is not a published secondary source as per, see WP:V therefore low on the verifiable sources index.

Let's look at what I wrote: "According to British electronic musician and Planet Mu label boss Mike Paradinas, the term IDM was initially not used in the UK, 'Only Americans ever used the term. It was invented by Alan Parry who set up the IDM mailing list'.

This is not a misquote. Paradinas has an opinion, but are you claiming here that No one uses or used it in UK?. This runs contrary to the facts.

IDM was not initially used but it is now in common parlance both in America and the UK; not to mention across Europe.

For the reasons stated above I am reverting your edit. Cheers! Semitransgenic (talk) 12:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

Mike P has put out records on Aphex Twin's label, and has put out records by Venetian Snares, Luke Vibert, and an Aphex Twin track on a compilation. As far as opinions on British electronic music go, Mike P's is pretty useful. He personally knows people from Warp Records and Rephlex records. Aphex Twin and Warp Records are featured heavily in this article. His quote is just as valid as Steve Beckett's imo.

What he appears to be saying is that IDM was not used by British artists such as Rephlex Records, Aphex Twin, Luke Vibert, and himself regarding the culture that was described by the Americans as IDM. I think we should represent this in the article and the lead. The fair way to do that is by using Mike P's quote.

What I didn't intend was to say that IDM is not used in the UK at all by anyone. It is used, but not by the artists listed in the paragraph above. It seems clear that these are British artists and somehow the American interpretation of their careers has spread haphazardly through the internet, and now people all over the world follow this misconception.

"the term IDM was initially not used in the UK" would mean that Rephlex Records, Aphex Twin, Luke Vibert, and Mike P, had suddenly adopted the American interpretation of their careers, but that doesn't match any facts. What you mean is that part of the British audience uses the term IDM. So, I think we've got our wires crossed slightly. I would like to remove this part, as it removes the opinion of the British artists who are being labelled with this American term. In exchange for removing it I would like to add that part of the British audience do say IDM, so as to be fully truthful, but I don't know where to find a legitimate reference for this.

I would like to add that the article where the Steve Beckett quote is taken from does not mention IDM. It talks about electronica and electronic music. This article seems to be based on the American view of British electronic music. It's interpreting sources from a British newspaper and modifying it to the American perspective.

A general problem for this article is that there are not many references available. I've looked in a lot of books and IDM is hardly ever mentioned. I've seen intelligent techno once, but IDM seems to have developed slightly from the American interpretation to the "internet" interpretation. When IDM does appear it is in American books which are full of errors and misconceptions. It's funny how quotes from the British artists who were labelled with the term claim it was never used by them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceefax Jungle Kru (talk • contribs) 19:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Quick note, in case you are planning on sticking around, it's always worth signing your comments and using a colon to indent your reply, it's just a formality. I agree 100% with what you say, but unless we have sources to cite, and unless there is an example of published research that supports this proposition, we have to follow, in accordance with guidelines for wikipedia submissions, what usable sources are available. I'm not disputing MP's opinion, but unfortunately it's often the audience for one particular genre or another that ends up labeling what they are listening to and this is then reinforced by music journalists, and other commentators, that's simply the way things work. On top of this there appears to be a number of allegedly notable artists who happily describe what they are doing as IDM. You can complicate this even further by throwing the word electronica in the mix because arguably what the U.S. started calling IDM is music that was at one point called electronica in the UK (have you seen the mess over there?). In some sense, in the U.S., IDM may be used as a label to differentiate that music from electronica which is seen as an umbrella term for all the dance oriented electronic music styles. The only way to set the record straight is to publish a contrary interpretation. It's always worth searching on google books to see what is out there on the subject, there are a number of references, but i haven't had time to track the items down to see what exactly is said (some books do not have a preview mode). Reynolds is the main source for intelligent techno from what I have seen. There are a few useful references to IDM.

Also, just rustled up this, which should probably be referenced in the article:

Microsound is a new moment in the evolution of genre – the genre itself evolved largely as a result of the Internet, and the acceleration of communications that the Internet affords. This was not the first such example – the development of IDM (Intelligent Dance Music) is closely entwined with a mailing list established to discuss the work of seminal post-techno producers like Autechre and Aphex Twin; in fact, the name ‘IDM’ originated with the mailing list, but now is routinely applied by reviewers, labels and fans alike. (Sherburne:2001:172)

Semitransgenic (talk) 16:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah the Sherburne quote is good. I suppose the first part is already in the article but the "now is routinely applied by reviewers, labels and fans alike." part could be useful.

Here's how I want the first paragraph to be:

The lead starts with the IDM list and mentions that the IDM name was developed in America, then Mike P says that it wasn't used in the UK. Finally we can say the fans do use the term IDM quite a lot these days.

To restate what I mean: IDM was created by American fans of Warp and Aphex, Mike P (and other Rephlex, Planet-mu, etc British artists) didn't use the term, later the term IDM gained popularity all over the world with the fans, reviewers, etc.

At the moment "the term IDM was initially not used in the UK" is colouring the meaning of what Mike P saying so I would like to take that meaning and place it in a separate sentence after the Mike P quote.

"I'm not disputing MP's opinion, but unfortunately it's often the audience for one particular genre or another that ends up labeling what they are listening to and this is then reinforced by music journalists, and other commentators, that's simply the way things work."

Well, of course, look at the joke that is post-rock ;-) I still think it's of vital importance to represent Mike P's opinion with due weight. We need to represent the artists, fans, and music journalists' differing views, I don't want to read a page that is balanced purely to the fans or purely to the artists. Mike P is tied to so many people and he knows what he's talking about. Ceefax Jungle Kru (talk) 19:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Can I suggest that instead of using the quote in the lede we summarize the point raised by MP, add a citation, and in the footnotes for the cite place the full quote as written in the source, this removes any confusion or misinterpretation, and keeps the opening free of quotations (it's not really the ideal place for them, it should function as a summary of the article content primarily). I propose leaving the second paragraph of the lede unchanged. Semitransgenic (talk) 11:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I agree with you on the MP quote. Try doing what you suggested though, we can always talk about changing it another time if any meaning is lost. By the second paragraph, did you mean the Steve Becket quote? It's cool, but I thought it was funny that he was talking about electronica and electronic music without mention of IDM. Erm, it's a nice touch to the lead though. P.S. I checked lede in the dictionary because I thought you had spelt it incorrectly, heh. Ceefax Jungle Kru (talk) 12:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

sorry I have not looked at the Becket quote, if what you say above is correct it needs to be dealt with. The other solution to the quote is to use it elsewhere in the article and cite it twice, the statement in the lede being a summary of what is contained in the article: generally you do not have to provide cites in the lede if it accurately summaries the cited content in the main article content, but sometimes to avoid bickering and to get a concise factual lede together, when the rest of an article is problematic, it's useful to put the cites in. Semitransgenic (talk) 13:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Hrm, actually it was the journalist who said electronic a few times, but Becket mentions neither IDM nor electronic. Recently I read in an interview with Luke Vibert where someone asked him about Drill and Bass and he answered something like 'What the fuck is that?', heh. There's a bit of a difference between what the British artists think and how the American fans categorise things. Pretty funny I reckon. http://www.sendspace.com/file/l2b7cy Ceefax Jungle Kru (talk) 14:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Made a few quick changes, will deal with the other issues later and sorry, I missed who Beckett was, I actually put that quote in, at the time my rationale was to add intelligent techno related content taking it for granted that most people were prepared to except that the music they are calling IDM evolved out of something some people once called intelligent techno (and later electronica but lets ignore that right now), all of this appears to have gotten lost in the ether somewhere. I would like to find a reference that explicitly states how the name transference happened because this is all at the hearsay level right now. Thanks for the files, will read in a bit. Semitransgenic (talk) 16:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

http://www.junkmedia.org/index.php?i=773 Another Mike P article, might be useful "No one says IDM in England? No, only on message boards when they're talking to Americans!" Ceefax Jungle Kru (talk) ????, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

there is another side to this though, for instance an interview with squarepusher, from the mid to late 1990's, where he says he doesn't know what drum and bass is, it's on youtube. It's a devils advocate mentality and I think there is in some sense a denial of the fact that like it or not, subcultures that identify themselves with specific styles of music exist, and have existed since at least the 1950's in popular culture, if they didn't exist, squarepusher et al would never have made it out of their bedrooms, so I think it's important to appreciate both sides of the story. Semitransgenic (talk) 00:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, good good, show each side of the story and let the reader make his own mind up Ceefax Jungle Kru (talk) 12:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

"The term is still seen by some as being peculiar to the U.S" I think Mike P should be quoted directly. The question the reader will ask is 'who said that? who saw it like that?' Mike P is a big name connected to other big names, what's wrong with quoting him in the article? Ceefax Jungle Kru (talk) 08:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for asking about this. Nothing's wrong with quoting him in the article; I mainly just wanted it out of the lede. The first paragraph(s) should introduce and tersely summarize the topics explored in depth in the article's later sections. The lead as it was was going into too much detail, and gave undue weight to Paradinas's opinion and the term's etymology, whereas I want it to focus on characterizing IDM as a kind of music first and as one of several historically-local-but-now-global names for that genre second. However when making the edit I ran out of time and forgot to follow up with edits to the main body of the article to ensure that particular topic (the spread of the term "IDM" and Paradinas's resistance to it) in greater depth. I thought perhaps adding a statement that this phenomenon (local acceptance of a term before global) was nothing unique would suffice, but Semitransgenic immediately ditched it for being unsourced. Anyway, feel free to re-add the quote, just not in the intro. —mjb (talk) 08:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

It's nice to know Alan Parry is your friend and you're a member of the IDM list, but I feel a bit of a bias coming from you. Can you fairly represent the British point of view alongside the American one? I feel like you're cutting out the British interpretation from the lead in favour of solely the American one. Aphex Twin, Rephlex Records, and Warp Records are British labels. I mean, if you're from the IDM list, it's going to skew your objectivity a bit isn't it?

I've never even heard of "EDM" before but it has replaced a useful list of artists in the lead para. "Autechre, B12, The Black Dog, Aphex Twin, and The Orb" has a clearer meaning than "EDM".

The opinion of people like Mike P should be *fairly* represented imho. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceefax Jungle Kru (talk • contribs) 12:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, EDM is a standard musicological term, you'll find it across a wide range of writings, it simply saves having to re-write electronic dance music every time. I've offered various rewrites to include your wishes but the consensus appears to be that it's not appropriate to detail one individuals opinion in a WP:UNDUE manner. Please don't forget to indent and sign! : ) Best. Semitransgenic (talk) 13:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Mike P comes under significant minority? How about a Rephlex section, then we can suck the Aphex Twin, Cylob, and Mike P quotes into that? Ceefax Jungle Kru (talk) 16:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to go offtopic. Are we supposed to represent what's in the music press or what's in the academic books? A lot of academic music books go out of date quickly. What's the policy?Ceefax Jungle Kru (talk) 16:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not a matter of either or, both are admissible, but generally verifiable published secondary sources, such as academic texts, journal papers etc., are viewed as better points of reference. See WP:SOURCES. I am about to move your entries becasue they deviate from the chronology outlined in the history section, the Rephlex mention can go to the top with the rest, it slipped my mind, it does not warrant it's own section right now. Semitransgenic (talk) 19:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

(Big reply to Ceefax Jungle Kru here) Re: EDM, I have no comment or opinion right now. Re: the use of scholarly texts vs. the music press, as above. We should acknowledge there's a difference between the music press quoting an opinionated source, and a fairly credible journalist like Simon Reynolds or Philip Sherburne assessing the state of things. We do have a balance to strike between presenting their statements as fact and presenting their statements as their opinions, of course, so it's not perfect yet, but we'll get there.

Simon Reynolds makes stuff up all the time. Like "The Hardcore Continuum." He's a good writer, but a bit on the "creative" side.

Re: having a Rephlex section, I think Rephlex is just as notable as the already well-mentioned Warp when talking about the genre's first wave, so mentioning it somehow is probably a good idea (and we've just made some adjustments to the article to do that), but its own section? How much really needs to be said about Rephlex? In any case for the quotes we already have the "Reception" (formerly Controversy) section where all of that kind of thing already exists and IMO is in the proper context.

Re: bias, we all have biases, and part of that is based on where we live and how plugged-in we are to the topics at hand. That's no different than the situation with any other editor on any other article. So unless I'm editing an article about me personally, accusing me of bias is just a form of ad hominem. FWIW, I was only on the IDM list in its early years (basically from the day it was created until around '99 or so). Alan and I have fallen out of contact since '97-ish, but I'm still in regular touch with Brian.

Re: the importance of Paradinas' quotes, he made several statements. One pertains to the origin of the term IDM, and the others pertain to how much it's used in different regions. For the "Alan Parry invented the term IDM" statement, as I explained in the 'Who invented the word IDM?' thread a few years ago, Brian & Alan both had a hand in naming the list, but memories are fuzzy and nothing much can be said with certainty, and neither of them would've been so pretentious as to deliberately name a genre, even if that's kind of what ended up happening by extension. Of course we ultimately can't publish such firsthand info, but even if I didn't have it, we do have Brian's public post in which he explains his role. Aside from that, in the spirit of the WP:BLP policy, it wouldn't be at all unreasonable to question the reliability of sources like Paradinas when they say "Alan Parry invented the term IDM". Paradinas is a reliable source for what he calls his music, and to a lesser extent for what terms are in his peers' vernacular, but he's not a reliable source for the things that Alan Parry did or did not do in August 1993. My having firsthand info that "Alan Parry invented the term IDM" is likely an overstatement is all the more reason not to interpret that quote as proving anything more than the fact that Paradinas is said to have said it. As such, it's not a very important statement. The "no one uses it in the UK" statements should be taken with a grain of salt. They reflect two very common phenomena: 1. the uneven but widening spread of language and popular culture across geographic boundaries, especially in the Internet age (i.e., surely most any name goes through a period of being local before global), and 2. in the music and art worlds, artists are notoriously resistant to being pigeonholed, and will deny their works belong in any genre, even when they're widely associated with one. If there's an accusation of bias to be made, it should be leveled against Paradinas moreso than Sherburne or Reynolds or me or Semitransgenic.

Is there a difference in the level of usage of the term between the US and the UK? Probably. Is/was it as extreme as Paradinas says? Possibly, but Semitransgenic and I are skeptical, I think reasonably so. The way we've got it now in the intro (The term is still seen by some as being peculiar to the U.S. but it is routinely used by music journalists, record labels, and fans on both sides on the Atlantic) could still use some work, I suppose. The "some" really means just one person so far (Paradinas), but that might just be a matter of finding more sources. And Sherburne's assessment maybe could be better qualified, although I think it's OK since it's used in contrast. However, your concern about the reader's questions is unfounded; the information is well cited, and readers should expect the intro to be a teaser for material covered in depth later in the article.

What I think should happen next is: more work on the Reception section to include Paradinas's quotes with the same level of importance as the others (I think they've gone missing altogether in the recent flurry of edits); and we should gather up all the terms for the genre (we have them spread out in the lede, the main body, and the footnotes) and put them in one place in the main body, then make sure only the most notable ones are in the lede. Also more sources should be sought for the earliest uses of all the terms in the music & mainstream press. —mjb (talk) 20:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

You're full of shit. I give up. Ceefax Jungle Kru (talk) 05:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

CJK this is not really the best way to respond to someone offering an opinion, no matter how disapproving you are of it, there are standard guidelines for user conduct outlined in WP:AGF and WP:NPA, if you haven't checked them out please give them a quick look, it makes life easier for everyone on here is we try to be civil. Cheers. Semitransgenic (talk) 23:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I would just like to add to this that as a UK citizen and resident (and have been my entire life) and as a big fan (and a friend of many big fans) of pretty much any style of electronic or "dance" music you could name (and probably some you couldn't): I have NEVER EVER heard ANYONE use the term intelligent dance music (or IDM), until I read this article today! And I mean EVER! I do believe that it is considered a genre in America and maybe a lot of other places however I think that Mike P's quote should be contained within the article (in its entirety) with perhaps more emphasis on the fact that IDM is not considered a genre of music in some parts of the world (most notably in the UK) or by some people (maybe with mention that some find the term offensive). Sorry I don't really have time to make an account to submit this :( 91.84.107.176 (talk) 21:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm from a small town in the UK and I've been hearing and reading the term bandied around since the mid-nineties. Not so much recently but quite a bit when Squarepusher put his semi-D&B albums out and Aphex Twin was making contemporary sounding stuff. I'm not saying I ever liked the term, but if it reached my little corner of the world, it must have had been fairly widely used. Perhaps the focus of this article should be the on the linguistic side, as in "IDM was a term assigned to European experimental electronica when many artists where heavily inspired by music heard at warehouse parties, etc..." keep it short and link to a few specific artists. I dunno.

Add links to last.fm IDM groups?

Wikipedia Externel Links rules:

1. Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace and Facebook),[2] chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, USENET newsgroups or e-mail lists.

This guideline is not a strict rule of wikipedia. It is there to stop the spammers and stuff. It is a guideline. The rule is not for the IDM article in particular and in general wikipedia users of the idm article must in turn decide for themselves if the rule is specifically important to hold towards. In my personal opinion I believe that the truth will decide for the IDM article to host links to the last.fm intelligent dance music groups. I believe that this truth is demonstrable through its virtuosity of fact in that it follows wikipedia's decision to spread knowledge through the internet. There cannot be a fallout, a badness, a moral vacuum by sharing a discussing group. How can the removal of the link to such a group be justified? Pedantry gives birth to anti-knowledge. As a pursuer of truth, I love IDM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John hannan (talk • contribs) 09:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

IDM simplified

After reading some of the discussion, I feel I must put in a little bit of clarification. IDM is both "Intelligent Dance Music" AND "Industrial Death Metal." This is a rather confusing pair of definitions, but this is how I view it: IDM is the death metal of electronica. This means that it's harder, darker (usually), and can include guitars and screamo. Several bands that I consider IDM are Tactical Sekt, FGFC820, Psyclon Nine, and Flesh Field. Most of these bands can also be classified as "Aggrotek," "EBM," "Terror-EBM," or plain old "Electro-Industrial." The music that can be classified under this is very diverse, but at least to me, can easily be identified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.233.33.1 (talk) 00:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Mainstream Popularity

I doubt Intelligent Dance Music can be considered highly mainstream. Medium would be more suitable, if not low- probably fewer than one out of ten random people have heard of it. Country music is also ranked as "High", but I'd be willing to bet that nine out of ten people (if not more) know what that means. Also, as it was mentioned earlier, it's a very subjective and arbitrary measurement- should it even be there without references to real statistics? Fraxtil (talk) 05:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree entirely. This should probably be changed. Epigrammed (talk) 01:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Oxymoron

This is a joke, right? Dance music, by it's very nature is anything BUT intelligent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.65.106 (talk) 18:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Now there's an unbiased opinion. /sarcasm --62.150.121.250 (talk) 04:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)