Talk:The Art of Noise

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia.

Contents 1 Band Origins 2 POV Concerns 3 Pioneers? 4 Proper band name? 5 Close to the Edit samples in Prodigy 6 Moments in Love 7 "we were voted the second best new black act."

[edit] Band Origins

I may be wrong, but I believe that the horns riff on Owner of a Lonely Heart on 90125 was specifically the work that brought the band together.

--Brianiac 18:16, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Yes (if you'll pardon the pun} and no, mate. The basic origins of the Art Of Noise are highlighted into the splendid booklet that accompanies the recent box-set 'And What Have You Done With My Body, God?' - Langan, Jeczalik and Dudley were part of Trevor Horn's production crew (as Engineer, Programmer and Arranger accordingly). Horn, as a previous member of Yes, had left the band as a full-timer but was hired to mix the 90125 album; Langan and Jeczalik were the main collaborators on this project. When the mix was rejected by Yes, Horn bitterly stomped off back to his team... who turned round and presented him with a tape of a little thing the two of them had cooked up with a rejected drumloop from the Yes sessions and a VW sample. Horn was galvanised by this recording to launch the ZTT Label under the auspices of Chris Blackwell's Island Records (a man who on first listen of the tape, insisted that they should be ZTT's first band - "...then you'll have a label.") So, it was a whole collage of sounds (including some that had been cribed from the Yes sessions) that made up the foundations of the Art Of Noise - the band itself however, was pretty much in place as a working concern already. (Indeed, it was this undermining belief that Langan, Jeczalik and Dudley were really no more than Horns 'house band' that led to them splitting away...). Hope this clears it up --Thumbsucker-UK , 05:31, 20 Sep 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV Concerns

This page seems to be full of POV, let the people determine if they like the albums or not.

Just wanted to add a note of agreement on this. Too much POV on the albums. Jfransella 04:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pioneers?

The band is considered to be among the pioneers of electronic music.

I might have thought of Karlheinz Stockhausen (for example) as being a pioneer of electronic music. Art of Noise very much the Johnny-come-lately. This statement seems too broad and naive. Perhaps pioneers of electronic pop? --Wm 21:28, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The thing is not many have heard of Karlheinz Stockhausen, but in the 1980's and early 90's the Art of Noise was very big, and very different than most of the music out there. Since electronic music didn’t really become popular until say the late 1990's, most of the artists where relying on music they heard as younger adults or kids, namely the Art of Noise. Also the Art of Noise tended to do a bit more computer generated sounds than Stockhausen, which is the real pull of the modern electronic music scene, but I while I am not totally familiar with all the works of Stockhausen myself, please correct me if needed. Also you may be right in classifying the electronic music of today as electronic pop--67.0.140.167 07:45, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Whether or not people have heard of him is not really the issue. The issue is, was he a pioneer of electronic music? - perhaps, he certainly pre-dates the Art of Noise and he has been well known internationally for several decades. The fact that Stockhousen pre-dates the use of computers and manufactured electronic instruments only emphasises the extent to which he was a pioneer. I feel this quite strongly, when I was listening to Stockhausen in the 70s, it was considered quite strange by many of my peers, some years later, the electronic textures became mainstream - suddenly the bizarre had become normal. Whatever role the Art of Noise played, and I really do enjoy their work it, the above statement does seem to me to need some sort of qualification. The Wikipedia entry for electronic music says that artists at this time: developed entirely new ways of making popular music by electronic means. - which is a reasonable statement.--Wm 08:31, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How about something like: The Art of Noise are noted for their innovative use of electronics and computers in pop music and particularly for innovative use of sampling --Wm

So the argument here seems to be that electronic pop is not electronic music(?) Face it, they occupy a very unique place in the history of electronic music, simply by virtue of giving said music pop appeal. Perhaps some of us should tone down our snobbery...--Tednor 00:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You are coming off snobbish yourself with that post. Maybe you should tone down your ability to be offended so easily by simple talk. If you don't agree fine, no need to call insults.--63.167.255.231 02:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Article about electronic music pioneers http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4486840 --Wm 01:38, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proper band name?

Is it "Art Of Noise" or "The Art Of Noise"? Even their own releases aren't consistent about it. I note that the page, as it stands, votes for "The Art Of Noise". --Larry Hastings 12:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

One might ask if is Pet Shop Boys or The Pet Shop Boys, Pretenders or The Pretenders, (etc...).--Tednor 00:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Close to the Edit samples in Prodigy

I was wondering whether it might be worth adding as trivia that The Prodiy's no 1 'Firestarter' samples Close to the Edit ("Hey, hey, hey"), and that the Art Of Noise get co-writing credits. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.20.43.232 (talk • contribs).

The fact that it was a #1 makes me say maybe, but the sample isn't a very important component of the song, so I'm leaning toward no. —mjb 07:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Of what I can remember of the song, the sample was used at the end of every line, making it a pretty fundemental part of the song, and the rythem. It's also somewhat ironic that they probably made more money from the success of their own 'sampled' song being sampled in another song, than the original itself. - Gary 28th July —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.27.96.39 (talk • contribs) .

If you'd like to write about the song, it has its own article at Close (to the Edit), and it could use some improvement. - EurekaLott 04:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moments in Love

Now, is this true? ""Moments In Love"—a ten-minute, downtempo, instrumental ode to sex that appeared on both Into Battle and Who's Afraid—was remixed and released as a single in 1985"

Yes, the version that appears on both "into battle" (except the cassette version) and the album is ten minutes. But it's not really instrumental, it features a lead vocal, singing "Moments in Love", "In love, in love", "in, in" and various other permutations thereof. "Close (to the Edit)" is closer to being an actual instrumental. And is it an "ode to sex"? The Art of Noise were faceless and bodyless, and the song proceeds at a snail's pace. The vocal line is angelic; I don't think I hear any breathing and moaning ... maybe Paul Morley said it was about sex in an interview once (sources, please?), but the record sounds positively etheral; "in love" with nothing and no one in particular; fully clothed in Victorian garb and floating through the air. 85.165.5.149 13:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually "Close (to the Edit)" contains far more unique spoken words than any of the versions of "Moments in Love"--Tednor 00:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "we were voted the second best new black act."

I've just been trying to track down this story of how "we were voted the second best new black act." I can't find any specifics whatsoever. I remember the story at the time (1984 or 1985) ... but not with specifics. What award, given by who, verifiable third-party references? Is there any evidence this wasn't just a PR story? - David Gerard 12:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

So close but no cigar. It's something that's missing from the article but I need the time to do the proper research (and I'm a DJ and it's approaching christmas and I dont have time to break wind - and if someone wants to do it for me...!!)

On the release of Beatbox, it was adopted very successfully by the danceclubs in the States, so much so that the band were put up for an American magazines Best New Black Dance Act of 1984 Award - and won it. So you can imagine the surprise when a bunch of white people from England got THAT news through the post... Eep!! Thumbsucker-UK 20:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)