Talk:Eurodance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For past discussions, see /Archive 1

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Eurodance article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rave, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to Rave, Rave music and other various aspects of rave culture. For more information, visit our project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
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.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Music
Portal
Eurodance is within the scope of WikiProject Music genres, a user driven attempt to clean up and standardise music genre articles on Wikipedia. Please visit the project guidelines page for ideas on how to structure a genre article and help us assess and improve genre articles to good and 1.0 standards.


Contents

[edit] 'Italodance' should not refer to eurodance

When searching for "Italodance" you are forwarded to Eurodance which is wrong, you should be forwarded to the article about italodance here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italo_dance

It looks like someone's added a redirect, so it should be OK now. Squidfryerchef 01:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


76.105.187.236 Reply: I agree, in Italy 80's, there was Italo disco, and then came Italo dance. Italo-dance has a unique characterics that should be defined on its own.

Yes, it's 80s Italo-disco that's more important to us. I noticed the article doesn't distinguish between the two, we should mention Eiffel 65 down in the "2000s" section, not the Hi-NRG section. P.S. If you start your first line with a ':', the system will indent it so everybody knows it's a reply. And if you put 4 '~'s at the end, the system will sign and date the post. Squidfryerchef 01:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archived discussion

Have moved old discussion to an archive page; link is above. Squidfryerchef 01:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page guidelines and removed discussion

Please note WP:TALK and WP:CIVIL. There's a certain format the talk page is supposed to be in, in chronological order. I've removed a discussion thread added over the past couple of months which couldn't be refactored because I could barely tell who was talking to who, and it wasn't always civil. Please bring up your concerns about the page one point at a time. Squidfryerchef 01:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox and popularity in Argentina vs. Latin America

The infobox lists countries and regions where Eurodance is, or was, particularly popular. Argentina has been listed there for a long time, in the top tier with Europe and Japan. Every so often it gets changed to "Latin America". I haven't had extensive travel in Latin America but it seems like Eurodance would "fit" with a place like Argentina or Uruguay, but I have a hard time picturing it in Bolivia, Cuba, or rural Mexico. "Latin America" is a very big region with all different kinds of people. Squidfryerchef 01:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Argentina's eurodance popularity is small compared to Brazil for example where many eurodance artist tour there each year. Also, other latin-america countries where eurodance is still favorites are Peru, Ecuador, and Chile . Only including Argentina alone does not correctly justify eurodance popularity in South America.
No, Mexico, Bolivia, & Cuba does not have much support for eurodance (cuba is part of the Caribbean)...However, most of the South-American countries where eurodance is supported would dominate most of South America continent...so changed to South America would be more correct. --71.236.129.134 05:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, I will put "South America" in the infobox. P.S. don't forget to sign your posts on talk pages. Squidfryerchef 21:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


I change it, the Latin America or south America label makes no sense AT ALL. I have been in those countries, but before I make my point of view (that some people could call subjetive maybe), let's used the numbers.

ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT DANCE-ELECTRONIC MUSIC FESTIVAL IN THE WORLD IS CREAMFIELDS. ARGENTINA,HAS THE HIGHEST ATTENDANCE IN THE WORLD WITH 75,000 PEOPLE, PLUS IT HAS ANOTHER 4 VERY LARGE ANNUAL DANCE FESTIVALS WITH BIG ATTENDANCE AND THEY ARE VERY POPULAR (YOU CAN CHECK IT HERE IN WIKIPEDIA). DANCE IS THE MOST POPULAR MUSIC IN ARGENTINA AFTER ROCK AMONG YOUNG PEOPLE.

That's why Argentina has make some very popular DJs worldwide like Hernan Cattaneo, DJ Dero...

I DON'T EVEN SEE SOMETHING CLOSER TO THAT LIIN OTHER AMERICAN COUNTRIES!!

And other American countries were Creamfield was, had an attendance of barely 10,000 (also those who the previous user said it has popularity like Brazil (where with 150 million had an attendance of just 10,000), and they haven't important dance festivals, radio stations and others like in Argentina (and probably Uruguay).


Just because teher are some light presence of dance, doesn't mean it has a high popularity.

And after the onjetive numbers I'll finish with an experience, I went to several different clubs in Argentina, as I did when I visit Brazil, Mexico and Ecuador. I DON'T LISTEN TO ONE DANCE SONG IN THE LAST MENTIONED COUNTRIES, WHILE IN ARGENTINA IT WAS HALF OF THE MUSIC OR MORE IN EVERY CLUB!!. AND EVEN THOSE IN ARGENTIN 8YOUNG PEOPLE) WHO DIDN'T LIKE DANCE, OR ELECTRONICA KNOW THEIR MORE FAMOUS DJS OR AT LEAST SONGS.


Ally

[edit] "See also" section

Should the "See also" section be removed because most of those links are better handled in the infobox? Or should "See also" be cleaned up because it has a link to "Euro pop" but no links to NRG or Italo. Also, the articles on related styles vary in quality. Should we only list well-written ones in the "See also" section? Squidfryerchef 22:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

==>Reply: Leave it because they're convenient useful links. Just add NRG & Italo to it so it's even more useful lists of "See Also".

[edit] Revision INPUTS & FEEDBACK

1. The introduction paragraph only has 2 sentences!!? and it doesn't describe to the reader the typical characteristics of Eurodance..(not until later). I suggest adding 2-3 more intro sentences.

Example: The most distinquish feature of eurodance music is the abundance of the vocal choruses and/or rap verses as opposed to other styles of dance music where less vocals are heard. The combination of rich vocals, rap, creative synth, strong bass rhytms, and catchy melodies make eurodance tracks easy to attract listeners and fill the dance floors. or shorter, The common characteristics of eurodance music includes rich vocals and/or rap verses, creative synths, strong bass thythms, and catchy melodies.

2. History section seems to be shooting off in many different places and seems quite long...is it possible to make it more concise yet provide better details?

3. Italodance (although unique on its own), has some common features with Eurodance, we should include Italodance somewhere in the article. and link the word to the "Italodance" article.

4. We should add a new section to describe the general Eurodance as of current (update). There has been many european dance releases up until now from original 90's artists (Scooter, E-Type, Dr. Alban, DJ Bobo, U96, Basic Element...etc.) and also many new generation of artists have came out (look up youtube.com "eurodance" and u will see!).

I would sugest removing the 2000's part from the History section and re-introduce it to a new up-to-date eurodance section. This new section does not have to be very detail, just some overall general description (2000's until now)....with room for later additions/modification/updates...etc...(until we hit the next decade of european dance music!).

~Euro4Ever —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.186.202 (talk) 05:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Woah, there. The thing this article needs, right now, is cites to published sources. Eurodance was so big in the mid-90s but there's very little I can find to quote other than liner notes and web sites. We really need someone to go though their back issues of DMA and look for interviews with Captain Hollywood. I think the introduction is fine. It's the product of many editors going back and forth with it for a long time. The history section is also the way it is because of consensus. It describes how NRG, house, and rap influenced the style, it has an "in America" section because a number of the editors are in the U.S., where there was a different experience of the style than in Europe. The 2000's section, while it could be retitled, is there to explain how a lot of us feel that Eurodance is really something from the mid-90s and the newer style is a different genre awaiting a new name. I mean, it is Eurodance, but in the same sense that Stock, Aitken, and Waterman are disco. If anything I'd want to expland the history section and talk about the lack of a youth culture, real or manufactured, to go along with the music. I do agree though that Italodance should be explained somewhere in the "2000s" section or whatever that section gets renamed to. Squidfryerchef 03:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Captalization

Unlike most genres, Eurodance always seems to be written with a capital 'E', why is this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neon white (talk • contribs) 18:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably people are reading the "Euro" prefix as a place name and capitalizing it. I'm undecided whether it should be capital or lowercase. Squidfryerchef 13:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I have the same issue techniccally i don't think it needs to be capitalized as it isn't a proper noun or adjective but could be said to be short for 'dance music of Europe' in which case the capital is correct, i always tend to and it looks better. I think either is probably acceptable as long as it is consistant. --Neon white 17:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About compilations and notability

There's been some debate in the edit history on whether or not to mention compilation albums. I'm personally for mentioning a small number of the early ones. I think the opposing argument is why mention just one or two albums when there are many, many eurodance compilations out there, and what makes the ones I chose notable? My point is that there might be Avogadro's number of euro compilations published now, but back in 1995 there were only a few.

If you use Google to look through discogs.com, there's a very short list of albums that have the name "eurodance" before 1997 or so. I think it's important to mention the earliest ones. Now my personal opinion is that having all those albums on the market contributed to the euro-fansites on the newly open WWW standardizing on the name "euodance", but that of course is speculation and we all agreee that doesn't belong in the article.

But I think we can agree that albums X,Y,Z were released in a particular year and were early examples of the term "eurodance" being used to describe a certain style of music. Squidfryerchef 02:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I can see your point but i still think that wikipedia requires a source that says these type of albums contributed to eurodance, as it stands there is no indication in the article as to why these particular albums are worth of note and it also should be noted that albums may exist that contain eurodance that do not contain eurodance in the title such [1]. A better solution might be to have a list of eurodance compilations if a source for their importance cannot be found. --Neon white 04:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Well anyway I looked through Discogs again and found a couple of even earlier compilations with the word "eurodance" in the title from 1993[2] and 1994[3] respectively. So potentially we could be maintaining a still longer list. However I was able to find a review of the DMA compilation which also said how important it was to eurodance fans in the U.S. So I'll move DMA to the U.S. section and cite the review but wait on the Logic compilation for now. Squidfryerchef 20:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2000s

I find the 2000s subsection extremely unsatisfying.


It talks about trends as "trance music losing popularity since 2006" - I don't think you can make such general clames about a period so short ago. Also it talks about the quality of the music, something people may (may!) agree on when they are talking about a certain artist, but not when talked a complete genre. In: "[...]among others, represent some of the best of the second generation of Eurodance artists." best oughts to be replaced by a more neutral term, such as 'most successful'.

GreatMagicalHat (talk) 01:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you can help us out with it. I'm more familiar with the Eurodance of the mid-'90s so it's difficult for me to make a judgement call there. Yes we should probably stay away from things like "since 2006". Also there is a guideline called WP:PEACOCK about avoiding phrasing such as "best of the second generation". Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


I'll see what I can do next time I am behind a computer (will not be before thirtiest). I am not too familiar with the subject either, but I can make it more neutral - as a start. GreatMagicalHat (talk) 06:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)