Talk:Boards of Canada

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Boards of Canada article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [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.
Electronic music Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Electronic music, set up to organize and expand entries on Electronic music.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
To-do list for Boards of Canada: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Clean up article.
    • Rewrite quotes into encyclopedic content.

Someone please add Roygbiv to that sample panel... 8)
Archive
Archives
*Archive 1


Contents

[edit] Quotes and quotes and quotes...

This is supposed to be an article, not a repository of quotes. Someone needs to rewrite the quotes into actual encyclopedic content and then simply reference the content to the off-site quotes. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 17:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. *Is lazy* - Nö†$®åM Flag of Canada 00:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Time to start a Wikiquote entry. -- Shoejartalk/edits

Done. -- Shoejartalk/edits

[edit] Old Tunes

Okay, I've created seperate album-style articles for all the Old Tunes cassettes, however, I am unsure as to whether or not I should add them to the discography, and if so, where? Thanks. - Nö†$®åM Flag of Canada 00:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Genre

I think that their psychadelia should be adressed 69.234.145.16 06:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Addressed in what way? - Nö†$®åM Flag of Canada 22:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

it should be adressed in genres...most of their music is heavily influenced by pychedelic music 69.234.145.16 05:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Subliminal Messages

"Some critics refuse to listen to their music on account that they are positive the band is trying to brainwash their listeners for unknown motivations, citing references to David Koresh and occult symbols as proof."

Can anyone provide eveidence for this claim? The link referred to doesn't say that the author refuses to listen to BoC, and anyway, one person hardly makes it worth a mention. I think the comment should be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.35.249.35 (talk) 19:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

Searching Google for "boards of canada" + "subliminal messages" returns quite a few results which refer to critics/critics themselves claming that they won't listen to Boards of Canada due to subliminal messages contained on a few albums (namely Geogaddi). Personally, I think the comment should be kept. - Nö†$®åM Flag of Canada 22:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any, can you link to some specific examples? Hellinterface 13:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • 1
  • 2 (an interview containing several references to the negative responce to the subliminal messages)
  • 3

Do you need more? - Nö†$®åM 22:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, none of those links have any mention of 'critics themselves claming that they won't listen to Boards of Canada due to subliminal messages contained on a few albums'. Anyone else care to go through them to make sure I'm not missing it? Hellinterface 16:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

If it's really a big deal to you, feel free to rephrase it. - Nö†$®åM 02:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
It's not a big deal, no. But it's inaccurate, so I'll go one better and remove it completely. Thanks for granting me permission though. Hellinterface 20:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for posting on this talk page instead of just removing the line. :) - Nö†$®åM 23:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brothers?

Then why do they have different surnames? Triangle e 21:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

There's lots of possible reasons for this. They revealed that they were brothers in a Pitchfork interview last year. PlazzTT 22:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


They don't. Eoin is Marcus' middle name, it's a gaelic variant of Ian. His full name is Marcus Eoin Sandison. Hellinterface 13:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

There's no references that I am aware of that give Marcus's name as "Marcus Eoin Sandison". Yes, they are brothers, but it's quite possible for brothers to have different last names. For example, they may be half-brothers, sharing the same mother but different fathers (and thus different family names). Pimlottc 04:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, according to their interview with Pitchfork Media, Eoin is Marcus' middle name, and since they reveal that they are brothers, it is natural to assume that his full name is "Marcus Eoin Sandison." (Furthermore, at one point Mike says, "We are both Sandisons.") Physcher 18:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, you're right, it does say they are both Sandisons. On the other hand, he's still as "Marcus Eoin" on the Trans Canada Highway EP (which was released half a year after the interview). So even if MES is his full name, it seems like he wants to continue using "Marcus Eoin" as his professional name. I think we should respect that. Pimlottc 00:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree that "Marcus Eoin" should be used for the vast majority of references to him in this article, however it probably would not hurt to make one reference to his (very probable) full name. This would mainly clear up the "How can they be brothers when they have different last names?" query that began this talk section. Physcher 12:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Marcus's full name is Marcus Eoin Sandison and I'm 99% sure Mike's is Michael Peter Sandison. They are definitely brothers. I was friends with them at School. Don't ask me to give out private details about their family etc. I respect their privacy. Names and birthdays are no biggie, however. KToiBalToi (talk) 01:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IDM?

Re this diff - someone obviously thinks BoC are not IDM. I would say that they're on the borderline of this genre. Didn't want to revert this before getting consensus.

— superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 19:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

categorising music is like, verbal racism of some sort. some poeple say you are black, others say you are tall, and others yet, that your hair is dark and curly.

they all are describing the same thing, yet, all from their own perspective.

therefore, putting BoC in the category of "IDM" is restrictive and does not neceserraly describe accurately the band's true nature, not for ME, anyways.

if I were to HAVE to describe it in one or a few more words, i'd say they are a triphop SLASH ambient BAND.

but that's just me...

IDM as a descriptor is dead. It's fallen apart at the seams and the first wave won't touch it with a barge pole. Psychedelic, ambient, and downtempo describe BoC well. IDM is an embarrassment. Even Mike Paradinas has come out and said in public that it was only used in America and that British artists don't recognise it. Some geek called Alan Parry invented it on the web. It's so silly. My opinion is that it's a joke. Rainbowabc (talk) 17:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

i dont like it very much either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joyrex (talk • contribs) 18:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Nobody likes it. But Trip Hop is a fucking awful term too. Psychedelic instrumental hip hop... -82.26.178.32 (talk) 19:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Birth dates?

When were the two brothers born? There are many different dates for this, does anyone know the real ones? Last.fm says 14 July 1971 for Michael and 27 May 1973 for Marcus, and other sites say September of different years... Are their real birthdays unknown? 24.16.140.6 23:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Mike's birthday is definitely 14th July 1971. I'm not 100% on Marcus's though but i'm sure it was May and he is a couple of years younger. I've edited the page to reflect the dates used in the MTV article which I'm sure is correct. KToiBalToi (talk) 01:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Can someone add their place of birth to the article? Yorkshiresky (talk) 19:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly where they were born, I never knew them till high school. They lived in a wee town up north in Scotland then moved to Canada for a while. KToiBalToi (talk) 03:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Some idiot has changed the birthdates back to the incorrect older listed ones, with no explanation as to why. They've given no reference. It kinda defeats the purpose for people to change stuff with no explanation. Shall I just change it back? Here is a link to the MTV article bio - (I don't know how to imbed web pages, sorry) -

http://www.mtv.com/music/artist/boards_of_canada/artist.jhtml

I went ahead and reverted it myself. Whoever made the edit should have at least justified it. -Roger (talk) 22:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

KToiBalToi (talk) 20:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks KToiBalToi (talk) 16:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Roger, I've seen you've asked for a citation for the birthdate. Use the above link as your reference. I'm Sorry, I'm unsure as how to add the (1) type link thing. It annoys me that people just change the date with no reference. Even more so, that I knew Mike personally and that is definitely his birthday. I'm not 100% on Marcus' though he is certainly younger. I believe the MTV database of artists is a pretty reliable source.KToiBalToi (talk) 23:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Pff. What's the point? Some arsehole just keeps changing stuff with no reference and no login. If this is how wiki works, they may as well not bother. You might as well say they're aliens from space, and unless someone can be bothered to continuously change stuff back again, we may all as well live in cuckoo land.

Can anything be done about this? KToiBalToi (talk) 16:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted the birthdates to correct ones with a linked reference in the reflist. Hopefully some arse won't change it. Damn wiki. I didn't realise it was like this as I am pretty new to the wiki experience. It has me doubting the whole thing. KToiBalToi (talk) 01:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
The battle ensues! lol. To be honest can this not be reported as vandalism? Also, should we possibly delete the information altogether? Is it necessary to even quote their birthdates? KToiBalToi (talk) 15:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Top Gear

I'd like to note that Boards of Canada music, including songs like "Pete standing alone" have been featured in many Top Gear episodes. I suspect the producer to be a big fan of IDM as a lot of music I listen to has been featured. I do not have any references, so I only leave this as a note in the discussion. If somebody can verify this with an external reliable reference this may be added to the main page.84.104.158.81 (talk) 12:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The music isn't chosen by the producer - they have people to chose the music specially. Electronica is often used as background music on TV because it doesn't have vocals, and is repetitive, so it's easy to 'tune out' somewhat and listen to the show's presenter. --82.26.178.32 (talk) 19:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Early Discography

Many of the articles for items in the early discography (e.g., "Hooper Bay") talk about them not being available publicly, or being exceedingly rare to the point that they haven't surfaced in the public. I've been following Boards of Canada since 1998 and that has always been the case for these early works. I think greater scrutiny should be placed on even including them here as legitimate works. I've yet to see any proof that anything prior to Twoism exists in any official form. In fact, I've often wondered if they're just fabrications of the band as a joke on geeks who would go out of their way searching for such things. (What's especially amusing is the claim of scarcity, yet most of the articles actually include track times -- how is that possible? Can someone verify those track times? I highly doubt it.)

So I propose that these entries at least be separated within this article; some note should be made that there is doubt regarding their existence. Globe199 (talk) 18:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe there was an older version of the current Boards of Canada website which actually included those works in the discography; someone correct me if I'm wrong? There also do seem to be copies (supposedly) floating around of various "unreleased" or "non-existant" recordings, physical copies, so I severly doubt that they "don't exist". There's little reason for people to lie about this stuff. Why would a band invent a fake back catalog... that's simply retarded. I think it's quite frequently stated that all of their previous material was limited cassette/cd releases and only released to family and friends, perhaps sent to record lables to try and secure a record deal, but I believe that's about it. Most friends of the band wouldn't do something so disrespectful as sell their copy, or perhaps even confirm the existance of such recrodings out of respect the BoC... I dunno, but you seem a bit too cynical. You cynic, you. - Nö†$®åM 10:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, they were on the 'official' Boards of Canada web site, which is controlled, theoretically, by Boards of Canada themselves. So they have the discretion to invent and publish a fake back catalog if they so choose. Does anyone have them on record talking about this alleged back catalog? Any interviews specifically mentioning the recording and distribution of these albums?
"Quiet frequently stated" is exactly right. "Supposedly floating around..." is also right. Have any of these records shown up on eBay or any other marketplace? It's remarkable that Twoism would fetch $1000, but records even more rare don't appear at all...and simply out of the courtesy of family or friends? Sounds like a total fabrication to me.
I guess what bugs me the most about this article and the subsequent album articles, is the confidence in the existence of them. Very little mention is made that there is doubt as to their existence. Futhermore, none of the album articles cite any sources, which is one of the foundations of wikipedia. I can't figure out how to tag them as such, else I'd do it myself. Yet those articles claim intricate details with such certainty. Read the article about "Closes Vol 1" -- it states that "it was released in the year 1992 to family and friends and later repressed as a CD in 1997." Do we have any verifiable source for this information? I think the biggest question is, why were these discography entires removed from the band's official site? Globe199 (talk) 20:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Look, the band has asked eBay to delete previous auctions containing BoC tapes (Old Tunes), who's to say this hasn't happened with their other material? There are quotes that have been made about old material by supposed representitives of the band, however, you being so cynical would probably dismiss those as either them supporting their own fake back catalogue, or a random person trying to represent the band. You can continue to be cynical about whatever the hell you want, but I ask that you dont delete the album articles or delete any mentions of them, as they clearly appeared on old BoC websites, and as of right now there's very little reason to believe that they've invented a fake back catalogue, as that's fairly inane. In all likelyhood they dont even care enough about their fans to invent an entire catalogue of work that never existed in the first place. Oh, hey, let's just delete all the rare EP and LP listings or independant albums released by EVERY artist on wikipedia that cannot be found because perhaps they didnt have an international distributer or even a record deal at the same time... You're being paranoid and rediculous. (I'm NotsraM, just too lazy to log in...) - 205.200.155.37 (talk) 23:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not about paranoia, and don't worry, I'm not deleting any articles. However, this page is quite clear on the following: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." And: "If no reliable, third-party (in relation to the subject) sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."

References to these albums on "old websites" which no longer exist are obviously not reliable third-party sources. I'm not saying we shouldn't have these articles, because the albums are part of BoC 'lore' as it were. But I may tag the individual album articles as unreferenced, and I believe we should consider a similar alert in the main article. Globe199 (talk) 05:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that eBay will go around frivelously removing albums that are for auction that are "non-existant"... Closes Vol. 1 (a fake version anyway) was just taken down a few months ago... I just find it unlikely that reps would to go the extent of quashing auctions of these "non-existant" recordings just to keep this silly lore going. As for your claim that a website maintained by the band/label with a back catalogue that is full of material being an inappropriate ref, I accept the fact that the page is gone, and that it can't by hyperlinked to, however, many people have seen this and clearly created wiki articles because of it. I refute your claim that the band has created a false back catalogue. You've got no proof that that is the case.(me again, too lazy to login.) - 207.161.197.254 (talk) 08:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
We don't know what eBay does or did. The fact that it was a "fake version," as you said, just proves my point. The articles may have been created based on discography entries on old versions of the band's site, but since those sources are no longer verifiable, they cannot be used as sources. That is standard Wikipedia protocol.
I never claimed they published a phony catalog; I simply wondered about it since I'd never seen any of the releases (and apparently neither has anyone else). I never claimed to have proof. Again, I will refer you to Wikipedia's PROVEIT article, which says that the burden of evidence is on the editor who adds the information, and NOT the editor who refutes it.
Finally, I don't want to debate eBay's motives, but if they are removing auctions for these recordings, that just further proves my point: these "albums" are not authentic.
Does anyone else have an opinion on this matter? Globe199 (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Globe, You do have a point that that encyclopaedic entries rely on valid sources and references to prove their "worth", but the problem with wiki is that it allows links to webpages as a reliable source. Just because a site is now defunct, it does not mean that what was previously accepted as a "fact" is now untrue. Could the same be said for a book being referenced which is now out of print and unable to buy in the public domain? Sure, there's probably some dusty copy in a museum somewhere that only a few people may have access to, but is that not the same for these tapes? Only a very few have them, and have access to the "truth"? Until, they are officially released, there will always be disputes. The general consensus is that several copies of the early stuff does indeed exist. I do concede, however, that maybe the discography section could be split into an official and unofficial section, considering the band, themselves, don't want this stuff out in the general public. A lot of what you say sounds like a bit of frustration at not being able to obtain the said items. :) I really don't think there's a conspiracy about making up fake back catalogues. KToiBalToi (talk) 02:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough... However, would Boc Maxima be considered "unofficial"? I'm pretty sure it's been leaked to the internet, so it's got to exist, right? - Nö†$®åM 02:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Nostram, after writing my initial reply I noticed there is a pretty comprehensive section with links to the full discography, and your section on the rarities exists also, so to be honest I don't think any changes really need to be made. Hope you are well :) KToiBalToi (talk) 15:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 :) I still fancy the idea of making the official/unofficial distinction, I mean, why not? I may or may not do it at some point this week if I'm bored enough :P Be well. - Nö†$®åM 07:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)