Talk:Joy Electric
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I was only able to bring the history up to about 2001. After that, I stopped paying attention to the band. The article is pretty heavy on the technicalities (equipment, synthes) and in trying to interpret why and how Joy Electric progressed. I'm afraid my version may be a little too one-sided, though. Also, I think the article would look a whole lot better with some images throughout. I'm not too good at adding those. Anyone want to step up? Also, other members (Jeff Cloud, etc.) really never did much. Joy Electric was more or less always a one-man operation. Cloud was more of a manager than anything. davidbarnhart
I hope someone else is able to finish this? We've stopped at 1999, but he's released 12 items and lost one band member since. RobMientjes 17:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] template for subpages
Ive added {{Joy Electric}} Template (View Here) to each album, EP, and single, and formatted stuff a bit.
Many alums need track lists at the least.
Also, a section called ==Band Members== on the main article would be useful. suggested format:
- ==Band Members==
- Ronnie Martin - (Year - Present)
- Person 1 - (Year - Year) Insturments
- Person 2 - (Year - Year) Insturments
- Person 3 - (Year - Year) Insturments
Dan, the CowMan 08:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Neutrality issues: Website
How am I supposed to prevent a user from continually adding stuff to this site that has nothing to do with Joy Electric, is completely biased, and just plain idiotic? Every time I delete the "website" portion of this article, he simply puts it back. A quick read through will show that it has no place here and is obviously just an attempt to bash certain members of their stupid online community and has no encyclopedic value. Help please.
- Both of you violated the 3-revert rule, probably unintentionally (ie, intentionally reverting, but not planning to go over the limit). Yeltensic42 don't panic 22:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Yes it was uninintentional (I guess I have to go and read all of the rules over again :) )
theres a link to the website, thats all there needs to be.
I agree, there only needs to be a link to the website. The rest of it, if you read it, is clearly out of place here. It is back now and I am not allowed to erase it apparently, so what should be done at this point? Having this stuff up cheapens Wikipedia. Squeemu
I (aka 199.126.168.137) think that Darth Katana X is the 'DJ BAKa' or 'we'll last so long' in question. Either that or a friend of his, so the neutrality is obviously questionable.
Also, most of the information is not factual. Even if it were, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. Joy Electric is an article about a musical group, not the petty quiblings of users on messageboards and the books they may or may not have written.
LOL, you're right, Darth Katana X is DJ Baka. Yeltensic42 don't panic 19:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
So do you agree that all of this should be removed, and a link to the site provided only? Djbaka might feel slighted by people on the je boards, but theres no need for all of this nonsense. - frogcarpet
I think it should either all be removed, or at most the "ask ronnie" feature be kept. I have already removed it 3 times and it has been reposted each time, and since I'm relatively new to Wikipedia I'm not sure what to do at this point. Squeemu
You should try discussing it with Darth, either here or on his talkpage. I don't know enough about JE to contribute much of anything. Yeltensic42 don't panic 21:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
ive removed it again. BUT! for how long?...
Well, it looks to be gone for good...FINALLY. I tried getting rid of all of that crap well over a week ago and quickly got reprimended for it as though I were messing up this article instead of improving it. The things that I got accused of were quite an insult and I still have not received an apology for the false accusations.
So, here's what I've learned about wikipedia over the past week: If you want to post slanderous material and crap that has nothing to do with the subject of the article you are most certainly allowed and will not be corrected for it. But if you are going to make improvements to the article and remove gossipy garbage that has no place AT ALL then you will quickly be corrected, threatened with having your IP address banned and accused of vandalizing the article and damaging the "hard work" of others.
Have fun!
04:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
its easy to sign up, login, and give edit summaries. that way nobody thinks you are vandalizing
- I know that at least one of those times, the edits were automatically reverted because a bot alerted admins to a large removal of content by an anon. Yeltensic42 don't panic 16:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- For one thing, Darth Katana X is my brother and for another, he isn't DJ Baka, I am. And neither of us are WLSL. --Phantasy Phanatik 21:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] CHRISTIANsongs info
The album showcased a wide range of feelings, spanning to familiar exuberant territory all the way into new, darker directions. Not since "We Are The Music Makers" did an album contain so many minor keys.
I've been listening to this album on iTunes. Only a few of the songs sound "dark" at all or have minor keys: "Disco for a Ride", "I Sing Electric", & "Synthesized I Want You Synthesized". Do we really need that quote, then? Ianthegecko 23:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it does need that quote. CHRISTIANsongs is a dark album in many ways, but not just the sound of the songs. The feelings behind the album, the mood, the message...there are many things about CHRISTIANsongs that make it a dark album when compared to Ronnie Martin's works prior to that album. And the quote doesn't say that it contains a lot of minor keys. It is saying that the last time an album had that amount of minor keys it was with We Are the Music Makers.
C&R 01:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] We Are the Music Makers description
Perhaps I'm just reading it the wrong way, but the following bit in the main article confuses me: "Of all his albums, Martin consistently cites [We Are the Music Makers] as his least favorite. But that should not deter listeners. Indeed, the songs are quickly monotonous - a consequence of Martin's inexperience at this new "purist" model."
The sentence "but that should not deter listeners" seems to me like it is about to say why the album is still good in spite of the musician's opinion, or some sort of redeeming statement. But immediately following, the article says "indeed, the songs are quickly monotonous...," which seems simply to say why exactly Ronnie doesn't like it (or why other listeners wouldn't). There seems to be a conflict of ideas here. Moving "but th[is] should not deter listeners" to after the "quickly monotonous" sentence, and before the sentence about the good songs would seem more logical to me. Or just remove that statement completely and use "however,..." —PrintHorizon 18:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- On second thought, is this section supposed to read: "Ronnie doesn't like it etc., but listeners should not write the album off based on that alone: the songs really aren't that great etc."—or something like that? This would seem to make more sense than how I originally interpreted it. Regardless, I think this section could stand a small rewrite. —PrintHorizon 19:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
