Talk:Space music/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Audio Streams

Please post any other Audio Stream links for SpaceMusic specific stations. [ 157.130.35.50 17:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC) [1] ]

Not Ambient?

If space music isn't ambient music, why is Brian Eno listed as a key artist? [ 206.124.150.239 05:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC) [2] ]

Brian Eno is a crossover artist. Eno first appeared in HOS #004 (public radio network, 1983). Eno is credited with coining the phrase "Ambient music", (Brian Eno:Solo work) with his 1978 album "Ambient #1 / Music for Airports", but he had become well known in the USA long after MFTHOS (Music From The Hearts of Space) debuted on KPFA, Berkeley in 1973. Unknown is whether Eno, an Englishman, ever heard a tape of the original San Francisco Bay Area MFTHOS. ≈ Stephen Hill does use the word ambient twice in his web page's opening descriptive paragraph.[3] HOS show music is also described as contemplative, and therefore by definition is never irritating. Yet among other examples, Ambient music broadly includes irritating industrial machine noises (Metal Machine Music, Lou Reed, 1975, 1998, 2000) that would probably never be heard on HOS (or anywhere else in its entirety). ≈ Furthermore, Space music is not a subgenre of Ambient because, for just one example, traditionally rooted music such as whistle Celtic is regularly played on HOS. Whistle Celtic is also played on public radio's Thistle and Shamrock, a show apparently not claimed to be Ambient. ≈ Space music is therefore a fusion music, where fusion is understood as a blending process, not a genre or style (see Jazz fusion). Milo 04:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC) Re-edited 04:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Brian Ferry and Andy MacKay co-founded Roxy Music; eventually MacKay invited Brian Eno to join them; that happened in early , not late, 1970s. [ Brian W 10:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC) continues below ].

I recall pondering whether to include that line... Since you have stated the Roxy facts, I'll cut that reference from my edited answer comment above. My reporting error of late vs. early 1970's aside, who cofounded Roxy is elsewhere (mis)reported as including Eno (see Wikipedia Brian Eno:Roxy Music), history page for this date --> Milo 04:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, I invite you to read Kosmische Musik, familiarize yourself with the history of German electronic music and finally realize that Popol Vuh released Affenstunde in 1970; if you listen to it you can agree that it may be regarded as the first cosmic, ambient and spacey album. Brian W 10:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I had added Popul Vuh to the Notable artists list on 2006-05-15. They were on a list of artists who were featured on my favorite HOS shows, artists who's popularity I verified with the HOS playlist server. ≈ I've previously skimmed Kosmische Musik, and I'll put a heavy read of it on my to-do list. Milo 04:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Internal Server Error?

Anyone care to shed some light onto why two of the audio streams have this written beside them? Both webpages seem to work fine, so if there's no real reason for this, it should be removed. DezSP 01:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Do both streams play music for you? Milo 00:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Unpleasant sounds

Zeit, by Tangerine Dream makes use of unpleasent sounds. So do several other releases. Therefore, the unpleasent discordant sounds are as important. [ 71.135.12.149 14:37, 23 Oct 2006 (UTC) [4] ]

The HOS server lists 21 hits for Tangerine Dream, but, it does not hit on Zeit. That absence is a good example of meta composition, in which a composer only selectively defines the genre within limits set by the segue producer.

For radio, unpleasant sounds can't be "as important" (an equality), since half of the showcased pieces would sound unpleasant. Neither Hearts of Space nor Echoes typically sound like that, since they feature an uplifting type of show music for which the public is historically willing to pay money.

HOS often produces one late October show per year that is seasonally and musically "dark", spooky, edgy, intense, or disturbing in ways that evoke the supernatural. These shows are not always dissonant or necessarily unpleasant. Dead Can Dance (38 HOS playlist hits) group-soloed with their own show (#339 Dead Can Dance 12-Nov-1993), but later they and DCD's soloist Lisa Gerrard (68 hits), prominently featured in October (e.g., #471 'Gathering Gloom" 31-Oct-1997, Halloween). Not everyone likes DCD/Gerrard's artistry, but I wouldn't call it unpleasant.

By HOS numbers of 119 playlist hits, Vangelis is a more important example of highly selective meta composition. Vangelis has composed albums or parts of them that are unpleasant, not at all spacey, or (according to a space fan correspondent) just boring. Yet Stephen Hill obviously considers Vangelis to be an important HOS contributor — if his segue pieces are carefully selected. An analogy is adding a small proportion of a bitter cooking spice, which provides contrast to an otherwise cloyingly sweet recipe. Milo 07:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Really Now

"multidimensional gradients"

What's this all about now? Hey hey? Gradients? Let's be honest with ourselves. Now. Yes. Ascensionedits 11:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

From the article: "Space music is subtly distinguished on multidimensional gradients, shading toward adjacent genres of new age, ambient, and electronic."

A spatial color image gradient is easy to visualize: "A transition between one color and another, or one shade of a color and another, or one density of a color and another. [5] The many users of graphics programs like PhotoShop are familiar with color and shade gradients. However, sonic gradients transition with audible time rather than visible distance. Glissando is a gradient of pitch with time.

A dimension can mean any characteristic that has a range of variation between two extremes. "Multidimensional" in this context means that multiple sonic characteristics are each transitioning on a gradient, and sometimes these gradients transition simultaneously with time. For example, the pitch of a note may slide from high to low frequency, while its timbre changes from a flute-like pure tone to a sax-like buzz tone. The gradient of timbre is space music genre's signature synth sound, which a space fan correspondent calls "zwhooshy" (a buzzy whoosh).

The multidimensional gradients[6] mentioned in the sentence specifically refer to a range of compositions that suggest a perceptually gradual transition between genres similar to space music.

I think "[[image gradient|gradient]]" should be wikified, but how much more of this explanation really needs to be put in the article? Milo 21:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

So there you have it, Ascensionedits. The meaning of "multidimensional gradients". To be honest, I thought the given answer was obvious. In fact, I think you knew it all along, and you're just having us on, to try and trap us in a cunning, erm, trap. My favourite bit was ""Multidimensional" in this context means that multiple sonic characteristics are each transitioning on a gradient, and sometimes these gradients transition simultaneously with time".
I was tied to my seat. If I wasn't, I'd have jumped out the window.
Gardener of Geda 22:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Lisa Gerrad and Mike Oldfield - space music?

Can anyone provide specific album names of the two artists that have the characteristics of space music? - User:Stardancer

Lisa Gerrard? I think they're taking the p1ss on that one. Great Music, but it's about as "spacey" as Britney Spears. And apart from his 1994 album, The Songs of Distant Earth, I wouldn't say Oldfield was "spacey" either.
Gardener of Geda 22:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I suggest that both Lisa and Mike are removed from the list of "notable artists". --Stardancer 09:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Do it, then!
Gardener of Geda 12:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Done.--Stardancer 12:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to put Lisa back in. She's been featured many times (with and without Dead Can Dance) on Hearts of Space [7]. I would suggest The Mirror Pool as typical of Gerrard space music.

As far as Oldfield, he is a key figure in progressive instrumental rock, which Stephen Hill definitely cites as one of the elements contributing to space music (e.g. Pink Floyd and Tangerine Dream). He has only had Oldfield a few times on the show, however, [8], so I'm not sure about putting him back in.

Except for one thing. Hill defines space music as music which evokes or creates a sense of mental "space" or place -- mental videos, or what we used to call eyelid movies. Much of Oldfield's music, particularly Hergest Ridge, Ommadawn and QE2, powerfully evokes this sense for many listeners. So I'm going to put him back in and cite those albums. --Bluejay Young 17:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I still think that saying Oldfield's music is "spacey" is stretching the concept to a ridiculous length, particularly if you say it's because it "evokes or creates a sense of mental "space" or place". You could justify any album or artist in that case, no matter how inappropriate or daft. Or no matter who plays it on what radio station.

And QE2??!! Nooooooooo!!!! I like it fine, but "space"??!! With covers of Abba and Shadows tunes? Noooooooo!!!!!!

Still; whatever turns you on, I suppose. The article is hilarious with, or without Oldfield's presence. It don't mean a thang.

Gardener of Geda 18:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Help

Can someone patrol this article please? It has been a good article for months, but the user Gene Poole seems to want to destroy its sense and quality as he did with the Ambient music article thanks to his "rave subculture" - influenced point of view. I do not want to start an edit war. Thx.Dr. Who 01:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you're over-reacting. Having read Gene's input to the Ambient article I see no evidence of any "rave subculture" - influenced point of view, or any "destruction" of any kind. There are parts of this article that are clearly ridiculous, and could use some editing. So please don't make subtle threats about possible "edit wars". It's not nice. You obviously don't like Gene - that's your problem. Has it anything to do with the fact that he's David Brent's double?

Gardener of Geda | Message Me.... 01:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not know Gene Poole and his face, I do not live in UK, therefore I do not know that Brent you are mentioning. Dr. Who

Never mind. I was just trying to make conversation ..... lighten up the mood a little. I failed. Oh well, then!!! ... Gardener of Geda | Message Me....

What is the overeaction you mention? Dr. Who

The overreaction? Oh. That would be you storming into this talk-page and writing something like "but the user Gene Poole seems to want to destroy its sense and quality as he did with the Ambient music article thanks to his "rave subculture" - influenced point of view. I do not want to start an edit war", just because he dared to say "Space music is a sub-genre of ambient". I would say your reaction was an overreaction, but maybe I'm overreacting, even though I'm not. Meh! ... Gardener of Geda | Message Me....

I should overreact becosue an imaginary person has posted a message right 30 seconds after I wrote at Talk:Ambient music? Dr. Who

No; I don't think you should. That's what I'm saying. (An "imaginary person"?!) ... Gardener of Geda | Message Me....

He hasn't written there for months. Someone (like him, for example) exagerately takes care for the post-Eno/neo rave definition of ambient (Jah Wabble, Bill Laswell, The Orb, and so on). I cant help more, sorry, I'm too busy with real world.Dr. Who 02:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, lucky old "real world" I say! Yes! Cheer up, and happy editing! .... Gardener of Geda | Message Me.... 13:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your revert, Dr. Who. Removing the central Hill-Turner metacomposition concept struck me as at least lacking serious knowledge of this subject.

As the cover of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy says, "Don't Panic". :) You aren't alone in patrolling the article, but we need just a little of your help here as you can spare it. Milo 05:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks to you all.Dr. Who 23:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Note : Dr. Who saw fit to slightly change the text of his last-but-one message whilst posting his last one. See here. It's no big deal. Just thought I'd mention it. Cheers!
Gardener of Geda | Message Me.... 00:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Apologies if that may seem an inappropriate behaviour, I wished to change the text two days ago, but I was really tired.Dr. Who 00:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

No apologies necessary. I thought I'd mention it just in case someone had read what you'd originally written, then come back later and saw that it was different.

Gardener of Geda | Message Me.... 00:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

The article clearly explains why Space music is not Ambient, I am wondering if this editor has ever read it.Dr. Who 13:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Please calm down. The article is NOT being vandalized. Gene Poole is merely stating an opinion - an opinion which may very well be correct. The article, as it currently stands, is hugely point-of-view ("What space music is not" and "What space music is", for instance). It simply cannot exist in that form much longer, and badly needs a rewrite. And be careful - you are well on your way to breaking the 3RR rule if you continue to mindlessly revert Gene's input. Relax. Listen to some ambient/space music. Gardener of Geda | Message Me.... 18:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'm very satisfied with my many edits at Wikipedia, and I do not care about articles related to music genres, they are all poorly written and unorganized. You are taking this story too seriously, Dr. Who

Methinks you doth protest too much. Take a deep breath, and relax. Gardener of Geda | Message Me....

I am not going to break any rule, but please try to be objective. Dr. Who

I'm trying. I'm trying really hard. You should try it yourself. Think calm thoughts. Yes. Gardener of Geda | Message Me....

I can't understand why that user is let to come here and claim to be the only real worldwide expert of ambient music. Dr. Who

I don't think that he's claiming that at all. He's merely stating his opinion in an article that is ALL opinion. And so are you. And the reason that he's "let to come here" is because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that no-one "owns" and ANYONE can edit. I suggest you try to understand that very quickly. Gardener of Geda | Message Me....

Where are his edits about music? Dr. Who 19:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

None of my business. Everyone has to start somewhere. Be calm. Gardener of Geda | Message Me.... 19:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Rewrting this article

I've re-written this article to conform with Wiki NPOV and verifiability policies. This has necessitated the wholesale removal of the "what it is" and "what it isn't" sections, as they were basically one person's highly eccentric and subjective POV, unsupported by any reference sources. I don't believe the deleted content has any intrinsic value that isn't already covered by other more appropriate articles - but if anyone thinks otherwise please feel free to restore anything considered an essential inclusion. --Gene_poole 00:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It's always a shame to delete so much from an article, particularly when you think that it meant so much to whoever wrote it in the first place ...... but I, for one, agree with the deletions in this case. It most definitely was all very point-of-view; not encyclopaedic at all. Perhaps - I say perhaps - some of it could be carefully reinserted in the future if it could be substantiated with references. All that's left to do now is to go through the Notable artists material, some of which is, quite frankly, daft. Yes. Gardener of Geda | Message Me.... 01:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I removed Mike Oldfield from the list as the most gobsmackingly strange inclusion, but there are plenty more to cull, and some to add. --Gene_poole 02:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Kosmische Musik

I should like to know what the relation between space musik and Kosmische Musik is. The list of artists suggests that Kosmische Musik is a subcategory of space music, but is it considered the progenitor of space music, or is it just space music that happens to be German? Is there any difference in sound btw. Kosmische Musik and other space music? O0pyromancer0o 05:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Any answers to those questions would very probably be opinionated, so it's best to make up your own mind, I think. I assume you've read through the Kosmische Musik article? For what it's worth, I'd say that Kosmische came first, and Space developed out of it, by way of other stuff. Many would probably disagree. Or agree, depending on the situation. As for "differences" in sound ...... best not to go there. Personally, I'd define Kosmische as being all-electronic; can feature guitarwork and rhythm; sweeping; lots of drone (my favourite); and is very ...... um ...... spacey. Yes. Space is ...... erm ...... I'll get back to you on that one. Happy listening!

Gardener of Geda | Message Me.... 16:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me like "kosmische musik" is a subset of "krautrock". The kosmische musik article however is another POV opinion piece that needs to be re-worked or provided with more reliable reference sources. --Gene_poole 23:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. The mysterious Dr. Who seems to think so as well - I've just noticed that he's redirected "kosmische musik" to Krautrock! Woof! Gardener of Geda | Message Me.... 00:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, thanks for the prompt answers, even if they didn't make me much wiser :) I suppose the best way to go about it is for me to listen to some more of this stuff and form an impression of my own. O0pyromancer0o 05:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Erm ...... yes. That would be a fantastic idea. It's always best to form an impression of your own, by listening to stuff. Gardener of Geda | Message Me.... 19:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Link to classic 2006 Wikipedia:Space music

This classic edition for the public is now history. For future editors' consideration of its notably different content, here is the link to see how it read:
2006-10-23 classic edition of Wikipedia:Space music. Milo 08:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The classic edition? I know this is the spacemusic article, but it's not necessary to be a card carrying space cadet to post contributions here, you know. --Gene_poole 22:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Unless that person is myself, any edit should be welcome. It has been edited by a dozen of editors in 3 years, and none complained. Now, after my first attempts at rewriting it according to criteria that have some sense for musicology, and not for business, two editors come here and accuse me of everything, and say that all the other editors are POV. This is simply incredible.--Dr. Who 20:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You do not "own" this - or any other - article. It is the responsibility of all editors to correct errors or expunge POV opinion pieces unsupported by reliable third party references sources from any articles whose content is muddied by their presence. This was most certainly one such article. It was appallingly written, full of bizarre unverified statements and was totally misleading - until I took the long-overdue step of re-writing it. --Gene_poole 11:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Merged

I merged the two versions, and I reworked the heading so that now it has some sense in musicology. --Dr. Who 21:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Either stop inserting your eccentric personal opinions into this article or else provide third party references to support your position. What part of this very simple concept do you not understand? --Gene_poole 11:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Enciclopedic tone. What part of this very simple concept you do not understand? Dr. Who 22:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do not post incoherent nonsense on talk pages. It is disrespectful to other editors. If you do not possess sufficient proficiency in written English to communicate with other editors in a clear, concise, rational manner, you may be better served by contributing to the version of Wikipedia in your native language. --Gene_poole 23:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Enciclopedic tone.Dr. Who 23:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Persistent revision of discredited article

I've just had a look through the article's history, which throws an interesting light on things. The individual who keeps reverting to the "old", POV, pretentiously-written, original-research article (and who keeps deleting the line which equates Space to Ambient) has said, and I quote, "It has been edited by a dozen of editors in 3 years, and none complained". Let's see.

The first, very short entry, in July 1 2005, says "A sub-genre of ambient music with space or astronomy as a theme, originally intended as soundtrack music for planetarium shows."

From September 6 2005, it was changed to "Sometimes associated as a sub-category of Ambient music, space music itself offers interpretations of other popular genres, among them: Electronic, Sacred/Choral, Piano, Trance, Celtic, Native American, World Fusion, and Arctic."

This version lasted until user Milomedes, on May 15 2006, rewrote the article to the infamous version (POV; original research; Space not Ambient) which lasted up to February 1 2007, when it began to be stripped of its unencyclopaedic content.

(As early as June 5 2006, User Brian G. Wilson stated that the 'Milomedes' version was "original research", and slapped a warning on it). Yes.

The upshot is, the article should NOT be restored to any version which contains material from the article mentioned above, unless references to the opinions can be found.

I'm going to try a rewrite in the very near future which will hopefully satisfy everyone. Gardener of Geda | Message Me.... 12:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Hill-Turner space music

Thank you for documenting my role in expanding the space music article. As analysis, it's probably one of my lifetime best pieces. I don't accept that the classic version is discredited. We'll just have to agree to disagree about that. However, we may be comparing apples to oranges.
There are a couple of points that seem most important. First is the issue of Hill-Turner space music versus other kinds, and second is the controversy about the relationship between ambient and space music.
The article that I wrote is specifically about Hill-Turner space music, since it was the original type. What I wrote is much closer to being categorically correct than are other music articles, because it's a genre of music more or less defined by only one or two living persons, notably Stephen Hill. Hill and Turner's musical vision was so powerful that it created a fancult among public radio listeners. Those who haven't listened to many episodes of Hearts of Space probably can't "get it", and even many who have listened aren't fans (as with any other genre). Editors who can't or don't relate to a particular genre have only a limited role to play in documenting it.
I can't cite the exact Wikiguide, but somewhere there is (or was last year) a guide that says that art and music articles are allowed to contain much more opinion than other articles, because art and music are by nature much more subjective than science or history. In other words, art and music articles are of necessity going to contain some opinions, as well as some original research, which is essentially a well-supported opinion.
I may have listened to more episodes of HOS than anyone else at Wikipedia, but merely because what I wrote about Hill-Turner SpM is factual, doesn't make it reliable source verifiable. Indeed, it may be impossible to WP:RS verify the musicology of Hill-Turner space music, since it is such a small genre. However, using the HOS playlist server, I did verify much of the list of notable artists with which you took issue.
What I decided to do, given the slack provided by the art and music Wikiguide, was accept the general Wikipedia invitation to tell Wikipedia what I knew about Hill-Turner space music. When there is controversy, the Wikipedia NPOV way is to tell the POVs of each of the sides. If there is one opinion that space music is a subgenre of amibient, and another that it's not, then list the reasons supporting each position, and so on through each of the controversies. Milo 07:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Erm ..... yes. Maybe it would be a good idea for you to write an article entitled "Hill-Turner space music". Perhaps subtitled "The classic version", and you could even pepper it with constant reminders to yourself that it's "one of my lifetime best pieces". Hey - you could even write it while listening to more episodes of HOS than anyone else at Wikipedia! Yes! Gardener of Geda | Message Me.... 17:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll consider your suggestion. :) Milo 18:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

And while you're at it, maybe you could review Wikipedia's policy concerning the use of sockpuppets. --Gene_poole 02:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem — I Milo, have no sockpuppets. Why would any self-confident talk page editor want to do that, anyway? I want full credit for everything I write without the credit dilution caused by socks. :) Milo 07:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Notable artists links

Please explain the purpose of the links you added from Richard Burmer and Michael Hedges on the artist list to playlists on the Hearts of Space website. I can see no reason to include these links. --Gene_poole 05:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Specifically, these are links to deceased artists' dates and tributes, which are of strong interest to musicologists. Last summer, a graduate musicologist knowledgable of space music told me he had no interest in any living composer (since conclusive composer analysis requires a completed body of works). He hinted that Space music was too new to be taken seriously since few of its notables were deceased.

In general, such links are references to prove these are notable space music artists. A few on the list are not. I had verified many on the list, but until your arrival, the need to actually reference them didn't seem necessary.

Every challenged statement must now be referenced, or eventually it will get deleted. If you were to delete referenced statements or other referenced items, you could expect to be reported for WP:OWN. But I don't think you would do that.

I prefer consensus art-music editing expressing a wide range of opinions, but by your constructive editing example of wholesale deletion of knowledgeable analysis-opinion (mine), Space music is now a fully-referenced opinion-free article. That's not my choice, but since you have constructively invoked them, hardball rules it is. Best personal regards. Milo 08:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Now that you've got that off your chest, I'd appreciate it if you'd do me the courtesy of actually responding to my query. --Gene_poole 01:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean "Please explain the purpose of the links you added"? I did so in paragraph one. If it isn't obvious, Burmer and Hedges are both deceased, and they both received tribute shows on HOS. The links verify their birth and death dates, briefly describe their careers, and provide an expert retrospective selection of their best compositions — all of which makes for easier musicology in an otherwise difficult-to-access genre. Milo 02:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

If any artists on the list are dead, links confirming that should be added to their individual articles. There's no reason for external links of that nature to be included here. Whether they are dead or alive has no bearing on whether they create/d music in the genre that is this article's subject. --Gene_poole 05:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Musicologists need an overview that can only be provided here. The graduate musicologist I met wanted to know how many composers were dead, and others like him, barely interested, aren't going to look at all the individual pages to find them. Even if you don't realized it, I think you are trying to suppress the musicology research of space music as a separate entity, as part of your territorial professional position that SpM is a subgenre of ambient. If you remove those timeline references or links, I will report you for WP:COI. Milo 05:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

"Space music <= Ambient debate"

I've just provided a reference to the above. Though I, myself, don't particularly value the opinion of someone who has a vested/financial interest in this music, it's something, at least.

As user Milomedes says, "Space music was (is) too new to be taken seriously"; so new, in fact, that it's difficult to get scholarly references to what it is, or isn't.

Note the article's second paragraph....

"It can be broadly characterised as comprising complex sonic textures whilst lacking conventional melodic, rhythmic, or vocal components, citation needed thereby facilitating for the listener a sense of "spatial consciousness", or sensations of floating or flying".citation needed.

These citations were added recently by user Doktor Who, despite the fact that the sentences in question have been part of the article since September 6, 2005 (to which, he claims, "none complained"). This begs the question (a) why is he wanting citations now, after all this time, and (b) why is he not providing them? Just a question. I'm just wandering, that's all.

It seems to me that Space music is quite undefinable in a purely encyclopaedic way, as the term is too loaded with opinion, and too closely associated with commercial interests, who, it seems to me, simply use it as an alternative to the much-derided term new age. Will the pain never cease? Gardener of Geda | Message Me.... 14:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the attempt at a citation. In due course, we will take up your points in the debate on the first citation request ("Space music is a type of ambient music"), and the appropriateness of your citation for it.

However, first, there appears to be a problem with rules compliance on the second request. I see that you have deleted the second fact tag citation request about the claim "synonym for beatless ambient". Your first citation says nothing about "beatless ambient", so please explain that second tag deletion. If you can not reasonably explain that deletion with no corresponding citation, please fix your own editing error and replace the fact tag.

"These citations were added recently " I think you mean 'citation requests' or 'fact tags'.

"why is he not providing them" Well, if he requested the citations, it's not his task to provide them. There is no time limit on citation requests; many are long delayed at Wikipedia.

Please quote and attribute accurately. I certainly did not say and also the musicologist did not speak that 'Space music was too new to be taken seriously'. It was his hint, or more exactly his implied position, that no genre or form can be taken seriously without enough dead composers. His attitude was based on the pragmatics of a musicology career search rather than the academic merits of space music seriousness per se. Otherwise, I agree with you "that it's difficult to get scholarly references to what it is, or isn't".

If you are in pain, perhaps you should depart editing this article. Milo 18:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

After reading all that pompous "guff", I get the impression that this article will always require editing, pain or no pain. I stand by everything I said. Don't like it? Edit it. I'm sure your edits will be very well referenced (feh!) and referred to as "classic" .... by yourself. Let's do that Wiki thing! Happy editing! And lighten up! Gardener of Geda | Message Me.... 18:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

So, let's see what we have here. I pointed out to you how you apparently broke the rules by deleting the second citation fact tag. You have now demonstrated bad faith (AGF) by refusing to address the issue, much less negotiating or apologizing.

Worse still, you want me to waste my edit time cleaning up your mistake. I assume that you wouldn't like it if another editor did this to you, but even if you think such behavior is acceptable, most other editors at Wikipedia do not.

So be it. Your unacceptable editing behavior is being logged. Consider yourself warned to not repeat it. If you persist, you will be reported — but, I don't think that's going to happen. My impression is that you are respectful of boundaries once you know where they are.

It's difficult for me to understand why you think I should be light and happy, when you refuse to cooperate under established consensus editing rules, and especially when I have to do your work for you. Since strict verification rules were laid on my "light and happy" version of the article (without the slightest consensus consultation with me), and you further consensed strict application of those rules, I now have to lay them back on you. What goes around comes around. [Milo 01:57, 27 February 2007 con't below]

I'd say that section of your post, on the pomposity scale, is in the "Alert! Alert! Abandon ship! Every man who takes himself too seriously for himself!" category. Thank you. That's one for the collection. And please quit with the WikiLawyering. I'm not impressed. Damned amused though! Cheers! Gardener of Geda | Message Me....

Back to content editing, I am actually interested in your viewpoint, which I take to be of "album" space music, rather than "Hill-Turner" space music. I'm also interested in whether the Euro view of SpM is really any different from the North American, other than that Hearts of Space probably isn't available for public radio listening. Milo 01:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

That's better. You sounded .... "real", there. At ease with the world. Canomile tea instead of coffee sort-of-thing. Yes. Good. Well. By the way, you seem to give too much precedence to that commercial radio station thing. Seems unhealthy to me; but whatever rubs your thigh, as they probably say, somewhere. Gardener of Geda | Message Me.... 02:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• When you insert comment into the middle of someone else's post, please add one of these plain text tags as shown above "[Milo 05:15, 27 February 2007 con't below]" to maintain the post identity.

Sure thing, Mil! You can rely on me! Gardener of Geda | Message Me....

• Not commercial radio, HOS is on USA public radio stations, as is the National Public Radio (NPR) network. Public radio is considered highbrow culture in the USA, more or less like the BBC's reputation in UK. I share your low opinion of commercial radio.

• You've made quite a few indirect references to my ego size, "pompous", "takes himself too seriously" and so on. You're entitled to your opinion, and I can handle it, but it might be helpful if you understood why you are saying those things to me. [Milo 05:15, 27 February 2007, "con't" (heh!) below...]

But I know why I am saying those things to you, Mil. I'm just trying to see if you'll say something funny, like giving me a potted biography, say. Gardener of Geda | Message Me....

I'm theatrically trained and I have helped train many others to perform. That means one person performing to many on stage, radio, TV, movies, publishing, etc. This usually isn't possible to do well unless, one has an ego size equal to the perceived size of the audience's collective ego; and, one has the performing competence to match. One simply gets used to this larger ego size while associating with people in show and music business. What ultimately matters is whether they are competent in proportion to their ego size. [Milo 05:15, 27 February 2007, "con't" (heh!) below...]

Yes. Like that. Cheers! Gardener of Geda | Message Me....

On the other hand, I'm told that UK families are typically raised in crowded housing, and train their children to shrink their egos, in order to preserve privacy and family harmony. UK children are taught to say the things you are saying to me when others begin to expand their egos beyond the comfort level of the family. However, in every country there are emotionally abusive families who carry this too far and simply try to make their children feel inferior to everyone. Sometimes such children go into show or music business as a form of therapy. [Milo 05:15, 27 February 2007, "con't" (heh!) below...]

I'm sorry to hear your family made you feel inferior to everyone. What a jip. Alas, your views on British culture are askew, I'm afraid. If anything - and this is particularly true in Scotland - we're generally taught to regard individualism as a worthy characteristic, and to consider people who take themselves too seriously to be somewhat ...... "lacking", if you catch my drift. Oh yes. Gardener of Geda | Message Me....

Yes, I do take myself seriously — the Wikipedia editing culture demands it, because it is the goal of the Wikipedia cult to be taken seriously by the whole world. [Milo 05:15, 27 February 2007, "con't" (heh!) below...]

"Cult"?! You mean as in some sort of viral religious meme? Oh dear. You do have "issues", don't you?! Gardener of Geda | Message Me....

• Btw, as with many editors, you misunderstand Wikilawyering. That is the attempt to subvert larger goals and principles by invoking petty or technical rules. What you are actually objecting to is my citation of consensus work rules in the attempt to achieve the larger goal of getting the encyclopedia written. Milo 05:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Nah, Mil! Naaaaaaah! That's not it at all! I'm objecting to your attempt to subvert larger goals and principles by invoking petty or technical rules! That's what it is! Gardener of Geda | Message Me.... 12:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• "I'm sorry to hear your family made you feel inferior to everyone. " Hehe, that's not me. Like millions of other families, mine has musicians and public speakers, so a 'performance ego' is normal to us. With the continuing rise of global video mass media like U-Tube, it may already be normal for children to learn that they can stage-present themselves to the world. In that regard, you may recall Andy Warhol's most famously prescient quote (see 15 minutes of fame).
• ""Cult"?! You mean as in some sort of viral religious meme? Oh dear. You do have "issues", don't you?!" Oh, you hadn't heard? It's not me — Charles Arthur wrote that in The Guardian, 2005-12-15, ("Log on and join in, but beware the web cults") and it's raised a bit of sand around Wikipedia. Some editors have been offended, but I think there's some truth to Arthur's claim of Wikipedia as more-than-a-fancult.

• Note that the quote and comment style I'm using above is generally better for thread continuity, when responding to one post with multiple issues. It avoids having readers not notice your inserted comments, since they usually jump to the bottom of the thread. It's also faster to read and to respond without jumping around. But inserting is occasionally the best choice in an established thread with several participants who are actively conversing at the bottom.
• Insert commenting is somewhat intrusive, so it's taking a liberty with someone else's post that must be done skillfully. Be aware that some editors will object, and you should stop if they complain. They are less likely to object if you keep the visual noise level low by using plain text in as few characters as possible. When you are copying from the signature for insert commenting:
"[[User:Milomedes| Milo]] 05:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)"
copy the underlined part, navigate to the insert location, type [] (square brackets), paste in between the brackets, delete the ]] from the pasted copy, and add the "continued below" message prior to the closing bracket:
"[Milo 05:15, 27 February 2007 con't below]"
The enclosing square "editor's brackets" are traditional and ethically important to disclose whether the original text was edited by someone else. By not copying the "User:xxx|" part, that keeps the username from colorizing and avoids a reader's hasty misunderstanding that the orignal author used a signature every few paragraphs. As in the real world, you don't want to give the appearance that you duplicated a signature rather than a username.
• Is "con't" not used in UK as an abbreviation for "continued"?
• "...your views on British culture are askew, ... in Scotland - we're generally taught to regard individualism as a worthy characteristic, and to consider people who take themselves too seriously to be somewhat ...... "lacking" " True, I don't know it first hand. I assume the crowded housing ethic would be more in England than Scotland. I suppose the Scots individualism is like the U.S. "old west" personality, but without the Texas-type boastfulness. It still sounds to me like "reserve", keeping one's (large) ego to one's self, is valued everywhere in UK. Characteristic UK reserve may have arisen during the Little Ice Age 1250-1850, in times when many people were forced to sleep in close proximity in large heated halls. Milo 19:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW¸ I´m from South Europe--Doktor Who 02:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I take it from Gardener of Geda's user page that he lives in the UK. If as it appears that English is a second language for you, the three of us provide a modest global perspective for SpM. Milo 02:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Well¸ I dislike the use of any kind of slang¸ both in English and in my current ´1st´ language¸ feel free to report my mistakes.Doktor Who 02:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's get a few things straight

1. Nobody owns this article. Those who continue to suggest or imply otherwise may be dealt with via formal Wikipedia disciplinary procedures if necessary.

2. Nobody can include their eccentric personal opinions in this article - unless those opinions happen to be verifiable in multiple reliable third party sources.

3. There is no "special exemption" from the application of these Wikipedia standards just because this happens to be a music article.

4. Nobody has to seek "permission" from anyone to make changes to Wikipedia content that does not comply with WP:V and WP:NPOV - the foundations on which this encyclopedia is based.

5. Those who do not understand formal written English with sufficient capacity to conduct meaningful discourses on subjects to which they wish to contribute should limit contributions to versions of Wikipedia in their native language.

I trust the above is sufficiently clear to everyone, and that these points are kept in mind by all contributors in future. --Gene_poole 05:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

1. You look a lot like an attempted owner to me. Your previous unconsensed wholesale deletions deepen that suspicion. Your unproved territorial claims to this genre make the suspicion of attempted ownership greater still.

2. SpM = Ambient is looking a lot like your eccentric personal opinion. The jury is still out, but I've seen no evidence of it yet.

3. You are wrong about #3. I'll find the Wikiguide reference to it eventually.

4. Yep, you stood on your rights to delete, but you would have looked a lot better to have consensus-discussed it first.

5. Looks like an attempt to intimidate 2nd language editors, which if I recall is a violation of WP:CIV.

I want to work on a consensus article with editors who know the subject, and are actually interested in it. Your previous edits demonstrated that you knew essentially nothing about Hill-Turner space music, so I have to wonder if you actually know much about album space music, given your ideologue position that it's all just ambient.

What is clear from your current proximity to WP:OWN, WP:CIV, and WP:COI is that you are at risk of becoming entangled in formal Wikipedia disciplinary procedures, especially if you fail to accept that you have consensus editing peers, including those (everyone?) that know more about space music than you do. Milo 07:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

1. My edits to this article are fully compliant with WP:V and WP:NPOV. Yours were not. It is up to you to demonstrate how my simple reworking of a badly written, unreferenced personal opinion piece constitutes a “territorial claim[s] to this genre”.

2: On the contrary, given that the list of spacemusic and ambient artists is mutually inclusive, it is your opinion that spacemusic is NOT ambient which is eccentric. You have to date provided no references supporting this thesis. It is not necessary for me to disprove a negative. It is, however, necessary for you to prove a positive.

3: There are no exceptions to WP:NPOV or WP:V. I suggest you read them.

4: How I “look” is beside the point. I expunged a rambling, unreferenced POV essay from an article in which it has no place. End of story.

5: Advising others to show basic respect in their dealings with other editors is not a violation of WP:CIV. Posting convoluted, off-topic, semi-coherent borderline-abusive comments, because the poster doesn’t understand what the person they’re attempting to communicate with is actually saying, however, is a violation of WP:CIV. It’s also offensive and disrespectful, and the best way of avoiding it is if the offending party limits their contributions to a forum where they are both able to fully comprehend others, and , in turn, be understood by them.

6: I, in common with every other person in the world other than yourself, know nothing about “Hill-Turner space music” because there is no such thing. We likewise know nothing about “album spacemusic” because that, too, does not exist. These appear to be terms invented and used only by yourself. They thus constitute WP:OR, and may not be written into Wikipedia. This is not my “ideological position”. It is just the way things are, and you need to either accept it, or stop contributing to the project. --Gene_poole 01:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Sir¸ you are the only guy here that claims that I am the poster [that] doesn’t understand what the person they’re attempting to communicate with is actually saying.

It is just your opinion¸ WP:OR sadly; make a poll (oops¸ should I say ´issue a poll´ or whatever).Doktor Who 02:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You seem a little confused. WP:OR is not my "opinion" - it is a formal Wikipedia policy. If you want to change the policy you will need to gain a broad community consensus. You should start by posting a comment on the talk page for WP:OR, not here. --Gene_poole 03:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It is just your opinion¸ your personal original research, sadly (see WP:OR); make a poll (oops¸ should I say ´issue a poll´ or whatever).Doktor Who 03:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• We are agreed that I wrote an unreferenced piece. We are also agreed that you had the right to delete it. Despite your claim of WP:V, you replaced it with another unreferenced piece. Ok, now it's my turn to challenge and delete, if necessary, your failure to observe WP:V at least, and perhaps WP:OR. The burden of reference is now on you.
• I've read your history of interacting with other editors and it's a long and uncivil one. I'm advised that each time that you don't comply with the rules, to report you, and to do so on a daily basis if necessary.
• Specifically, I will watch your interactions with Doktor Who. If you act abusively or attempt to intimidate or belittle him because of his English as a second language skills, including suggesting that he should go elsewhere because of his language skills, I will report you. Milo 06:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I have a long, long history as a respected contributor to Wikipedia, collaborating with dozens of editors in the creation of dozens of articles on a huge variety of subjects over a period of more than 4 years. During this time I have been attacked from time to time by numerous assorted POV-pushers and crazies. You should take note that all of these - without exception - have ended up imploding or being banned by the Arbcom. If you wish to join the list, you are more than welcome to try - but I wouldn't recommend it. I suggest that it would be far more productive for you to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's editing policies and adhere to them, otherwise your time here is likely to be both frustrating and brief. --Gene_poole 00:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Tentative new article

I've just put up a suggestion for a new look to the article on my sandbox.

See here.

Suggestions/comments welcome - use the page's 'discussion' tab, or this thread. Please don't change the actual article; I'll deal with any changes myself.

I'll keep it up for a week from this posting, then act according to whatever everybody thinks. Possibly. Gardener of Geda | Message Me.... 19:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Whew, hehe, it's currently got some heavy POV, but I like it as a starting proposal. Really, before anything else, and never mind our personal views, we have to consense on the provable relationship between Space music, Ambient, Electronic, and New Age, since that cascades into what the rest of the article will say.

I'd rather discuss it here, if you don't mind, otherwise new editors will get thread-confused about things that were discussed over there. With a split debate, it's also more likely that there will be disputes about who consensed to what and when.

Please add Google searches on { HOS music OR space } { "Hearts of Space" } and { "Music From The Hearts Of Space" }

I agree that you aren't going to find "Hill-Turner" in a search, because everyone else knows that as 'the kind of music compilations invented by Hill and Turner as produced in the HOS public radio shows, and the MFTHOS KPFA shows before that'. Defined abbreviations are permitted in writing Wikipedia. How else to repeatedly describe this 800-show compilation standard in the article?

Thanks, good work so far. Milo 20:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I should mention that I didn't touch the Notable artists section, though I feel that it needs a severe pruning. As to the "provable" relationships to other types, this is the sort of area that will result in everything going round in circles. To me, it's a given that they are very closely related; it's obvious. The whole point of my rewrite of space music is that the relationship to H.o.S. is a dead duck, beyond resuscitation. Perhaps of historical interest, but that's all. The H.o.S. article should be the only repository for the "Hill-Turner" side of things. Otherwise, as I say, we'll constantly keep taking one step forward and two steps back.

As to the extended Google searches - I honestly don't think they're necessary. The ones already present are merely there to prove a point - that your usage of the terms was heavily POV. (Additional note : I don't expect the 'Referencing Google' section would be included in the final draft). I don't think this article should be about researching, or even mentioning beyond what is absolutely necessary, an outfit that space/ambient/electronic music has outgrown. You place FAR too much emphasis on them. Gardener of Geda | Message Me.... 20:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I like it¸ it´s very cool.--Doktor Who 20:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, while the intention in producing it is good, there is a great deal in the new article that constitutes WP:OR and which cannot be included unless substantially rewritten. I also see the opening statement as problemmatic, as it does not accurately state that spacemusic is a type of ambient music. The suggested opening is weasel-wording at its finest and cannot be included in that form. --Gene_poole 01:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It's early days yet for the article - I'll keep chipping away at it till I get something that satisfies as many as possible. I'll try a further rewrite tomorrow. I agree that the opening is as you say; it was merely an attempt to "soften the blow", as it were, for the redoubtable Milomedes, though I get the impression that he's hell-bent on (a) denying any links to ambient and (b) explicitly keeping any and all references to H.o.S. To be honest, I doubt very much that a compromise is possible, and that ANY article any of us writes will not be appreciated by all. It is the way of things. We'll see what happens by the time I first specified. This is fun. Gardener of Geda | Message Me.... 01:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It's only possible to achieve consensus if everyone edits in good faith. I'm far from convinced that that is currently possible here. I think it might be a good idea to see if we can iniate a checkuser request, to try to sort out exactly how many people are really contributing to this discussion. I suspect it is rather less than some people would like us to believe. I have already sought input from an administrator on this issue. --Gene_poole 01:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Intriguing! Far be it from me to comment. As everyone knows, I'm not the kinda guy to get involved in trouble of any kind. I wouldn't want my spotless reputation to become shattered. I've just read through the latest round of complaints against you - I certainly hope you can manage to get a checkuser situation going. As for article consensus - I don't hold high hopes myself. But, you never know. Gardener of Geda | Message Me.... 01:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Not to worry, Gardener, I debate a lot, but I'm ultimately I'm a consensus editor. :) Ambient is mentioned twice in Stephen Hill's website intro, so there is clearly a relationship. As for HOS, it's so central to the genre, that it may keep popping up on it own in provable facts. Let's see where the ride takes us. (Did you ever see the movie Fantastic Voyage?)

"H.o.S. is a dead duck, beyond resuscitation. Perhaps of historical interest, but that's all." You certainly have that factually wrong. HOS is on 300 NPR stations last time I checked. Since there are 50 to 100 major radio-TV markets in the U.S., that means HOS is available most places in the U.S. using a long range FM antenna if necessary.

"You place FAR too much emphasis on them." You don't know enough about them to say that. It's also a bit like saying certain Beatles fancults put too much emphasis on John Lennon. Maybe so from your POV, but to them, John was (and Yoko is) special beyond mere music.

I realize you don't "get it" about HOS. That's why I asked you to do the additional searches (I know they don't go into the final article, but a good idea). You probably think HOS is more-or-less like Diliberto's Echos, i.e, just another radio show. But it's not. There's a persistent public radio fancult backing it up. Scattered thinly and very quiet, I'm told by public radio member-drive staff, but HOS listeners live everywhere.

You've never been into the HOS show, and it sounds like you never will be (since you probably can't afford it on the net). Summer of Love was something silly that a few thousand grandma-age foreigners did long before you were born, and that you probably don't much care about anyway. If so, so be it, but your POV about HOS as a commercial radio show seems weird over here in public radio land. Hill is not anything like a huckster, nor is HOS obsolete.

Hill has said he's been urged to keep doing shows as long as he possibly can. It's due to a fancult love of music deeply rooted in a historic time and place, that is unique in my music, radio, and cultural experience. I was in a meeting many years ago, where a guest speaker on radio with no previous lead in context about music or space, suddenly declared that Stephen Hill was one of, if not the best, radio announcers on the air. That truth had not previously occurred to me, since I assumed I was almost the only person in my town listening to him.

There's a concept that Jello Biafra (of Dead Kennedys fame) called "the consciousness side of the Sixties" on one of his spoken word albums. HOS fits there. Stephen Hill and the late Anna Turner are minor legends who emerged in the San Francisco Bay Area, following the arc of the '67 Summer of Love, with MFTHOS in '73 being still a time of that useless war, Vietnam. Of course, space music was a small scene compared with Hendrix, et al, but acid rock was superficial noise compared to evocative space music. Space music has lasted far beyond a passing fashion.

Not to forget that "New Age" is a religion, and that an unknown number of wealthy New Age believers take seriously, Constance Demby's Sacred Space Music. (A number of space music composers don't want to be associated with New Age as a music, because it can be confused with a religion — that's provable I think.) While space music isn't a religion, it's so closely associated with one that you can't automatically assume it will go out of style the way that non-religious musics do.

I hope I've convinced you that there is more substance to HOS than you thought (I'm not holding my breath :) , because those are the historic and current facts, though not necessarily Wikipedia WP:RS facts.

In any case, we will write what we can prove, whether about HOS or albums, and that may not be much. As a practical matter, the HOS web site is likely to be the major source of provable facts about space music, since it meets the WP:RS recognized authority standard (space music), and the "about themselves" standard (HOS).

What I don't know, is in what proportion is HOS' influence to the "album" space music scene in the U.S.; or, perhaps more important to the music business here, how much HOS play drives the purchase of space music albums found in the New Age bin here. As a generalization though, music producers in the U.S. assume that they must get radio play to sell music albums of any type. Milo 02:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

(1) Yes; there clearly is a relationship. It says so in the footnote that I provided a few days ago. Source = H.o.S.

(2) The "dead duck" statement was in reference to H.o.S. presence in this article - NOT to their, I'm sure, huge presence in the media.

(3) My comment on the fact that you place too much emphasis on them is, again, related to their presence in this article. They're just a radio station. They DO NOT have any say as to what is, or isn't, space music. No more than anyone else, I mean. Your insistence that they are Gods is the main reason why this article is going to go to the dogs.

(4) "Commercial radio station" as regards the fact that they make money from what they do. NOT that they broadcast commercials. Isn't that clear???!!!

(5) Yes, I could afford a subscription. Thank you for your concern, and the not-so-veiled insult. I don't listen to much radio, as I have a huge backlog of music just waiting to be listened to.

(6) I am at a total loss when it comes to this strange habit you have of talking about "album" and H.o.S. space music. A complete loss. You are going round in circles.

(7) The rest of your message convinces me that the article is going to be a problem, one not worth wasting too much time on. I feel that your comments/opinions on H.o.S. border on the "bizarre" side of "disturbing". No offence. Gardener of Geda | Message Me.... 02:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

"Thank you for your concern, and the not-so-veiled insult." Pardon, what unintentional insult would that be? It's too easy to assume that well-intended remarks have some pejorative hidden meaning, which is one reason for WP:AGF. In any case, insults aren't my personal style.

"They DO NOT have any say as to what is, or isn't, space music." I'm at a loss to understand why you think this, since Hill and Turner discovered and named the concept.

By analogy then, Carl Perkins, Chuck Berry, etc., do not have any say as to what is, or isn't, rock and roll music?

If the founders of genres don't have any say as to what is, or isn't, their genre, then who does? Milo 14:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

"what unintentional insult would that be?" : Yes. I'm sure that it was a well-intended insult. I believe you.

No comment. I will not go round in circles with this one. Your analogy with Chuck Berry, by the way, is the funniest thing I've read in a while. Cheers! Gardener of Geda | Message Me.... 18:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

As nearly as I can discern, your definition of "will not go round in circles with this one" means "will not debate this point", or "will not negotiate this issue".

In seeking article content consensus, do I correctly understand that:

(1) Your exclusion of Hearts of Space founder's space music definitions from the article is non-negotiable?

(2) You will not explain your reasoning for the HOS exclusion, or further debate it by analogy to the founders of other music genres?

(3) You will not state your view of who does have the right or power to say what is, or isn't, the definition of a music genre?

Milo 21:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that any consensus is possible on this article. Unfortunate, but true, alas. Polarisation seems to be absolute. There are articles to write, and a life to lead. I'll keep my eye on it, but - for the time being - I'm going to follow this philosophy on the article. Chin up! Gardener of Geda | Message Me.... 22:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

"Polarisation seems to be absolute." This is news to me. I certainly haven't taken any polarized absolute positions, so they must be yours.

"I doubt that any consensus is possible on this article." You can't determine that without negotiating, and you have withdrawn from negotiating before your positions are clearly known, much less understood by me. You won't even confirm or deny my restatement of your apparent positions, which is a standard negotiating procedure, to make sure that one does not inadvertently misunderstand the negotiating partner's true position.

Ok, my understanding is that you are now standing aside from editing the article. I'd prefer to negotiate with you, but that's your choice. It seems like the next step is an RfC. If I write an RfC, expect to see your stand-aside exit positions being written as (1), (2), and (3) listed above. Milo 03:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

What Space Music is

Time for a reality-check Milo. HOS is a pioneering ambient music radio show with a devoted listener-base. In this it closely resembles a number of other similar shows. The HOS producers coined the catch-all term "space music" to describe the show's overarching tone, which may be created by segue mixing tracks from multiple musical genres. As such, "space music" is not a musical genre in its own right, but merely a term applied to music that in the majority of cases is broadly synonymous with various permutations of ambient. At its foundation, "space music" is simply "any music broadcast by HOS". The article needs to reflect this reality. It most certainly should not be used as a vehicle for the promotion of unreferenced original research in the manner you appear to be suggesting above. --Gene_poole 07:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• "HOS is a pioneering ambient music radio show" There are at least three problems with proving that POV. Some of the space-music-is-not-ambient facts are provable, and some are not:

(1) When space music was named in 1973, the musical genre term "ambient" didn't exist. That means you must use historic revisionism to make a claim that HOS/SpM is ambient genre. If you claim SpM and ambient are the same, then it's the other way around: historically, spacey and ambient music would both be named space music, because the ambient name got to the dock after the space music genre ship had left. But SpM/HOS fans don't think they are the same, rather that they cross over, and only cross over part way.

(2) Space music is a significant portion acoustic Celtic, acoustic Tibetan-Buddhist chant, and western religious choral genres, which have ancient genre roots of their own. None of those three+ genre musician/fan groups are going to accept a notion that their traditional genres are now to be known as ambient. And if they aren't ambient, then neither is space music in its entirety; therefore, space music logically cannot be either a subset, or a type of, ambient music.

(3) While it's true that "space music" is music programmed by HOS, through a Hill and Turner taste-format filter, the inverse is not true: HOS does not program just any music. It's not an eclectic DJ show mixing catch-all "multiple musical genres". At its foundation, the SpM claim to genre is psychoacoustic. Analogous to rock (and roll)'s psychoacoustic feel of the beat, space music evokes a psychoacoustic sensation of travel through spaces, many of which are not perceived as physical spaces.

Does ambient do this too? In evocative compositions it does, if one turns up the volume and foreground listens — especially with headphones. One can turn nearly all space music into ambient by playing it at low volume in the background, but only evocative ambient can be turned into space music by thus inverting figure and ground. (If one turns up SpM-like ambient and it doesn't evoke, it's likely to be New Age.)

In its original Eno definition, ambient was background music, listened to at low volume in the background of doing something else. If ambient promoters are now claiming that ambient is (also) foreground music, there's two problems: (a) the "ambient" name doesn't ring true, and (b) space music was already foreground before ambient was named. To make (b) a bit more emphatic, space music to its inner fancult was always primarily headphone music. It isn't possible for music to become more foreground than with headphones.

• "promotion of unreferenced original research in the manner you appear to be suggesting above." Actually, I was firmly specific in stating just the opposite:

"In any case, we will write what we can prove, whether about HOS or albums, and that may not be much. As a practical matter, the HOS web site is likely to be the major source of provable facts about space music, since it meets the WP:RS recognized authority standard (space music), and the "about themselves" standard (HOS)."

• "Time for a reality-check" I independently had almost the same thought before you posted. It could be that the Commonwealth nations bought into Eno's ambient fame (I like Eno, too), and simply assumed that spacey compositions had always been known as ambient. If that's true, I'm starting to understand why you and Gardener are unhappy with the facts — it's one of those Future Shock feelings of "everything you know is wrong".

Nonetheless, the single most important and proveable article fact is that space music was named first, in 1973, and ambient was named second, in 1978.

Milo 13:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Your propensity for posting eccentric, misguided and badly-informed original reasearch on this subject is admirable - if only for the sheer volume of impenetrable prose involved. Unfortunately it has no relevance to this article unless you can support your POV with reliable third party sources. --Gene_poole 22:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted. Moving forward, we will now focus on the provable, or at least uncontested, statements for the article.

The first set of facts for inclusion in the article:

"space music" or "spacemusic" was named or coined first, in 1973, and "ambient music" was named or coined second, in 1978.

Any comment? Milo 18:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. 1. The first part of the statement is unsourced. 2. The statement as a whole is irrelevant. That Eno coined the term "ambient", or that he did it in 1978 is a matter of no consequence. "Ambient" is the term universally applied to certain types of music - including "space music" - today. And that's a fact. --Gene_poole 02:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

So,

#01a " "space music" or "spacemusic" was named or coined first, in 1973"

is a statement sourcing to-do item.

We'll put aside the issue of whole-statement #01 relevance until and if this #01a part of the statement gets sourced.

#02 " "Ambient" is the term universally applied to certain types of music - including "space music" - today."

You claim it's a fact, but this statement #02 is unsourced. Milo 03:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Statement two is a universally accepted self-evident reality. The only person in the entire world saying otherwise is you. It is therefore incumbent on you to provide sources in support of your POV. --Gene_poole 05:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I must differ regarding statement two. While much spacemusic is ambient, some spacemusic is not ambient. For example some of Tangerine Dream's albums evoke the feeling of space travel and expansiveness but would be difficult to experience as environmental or background music, due to their melodic and rhythmic elements that draw the listener's attention and move away from the idea of Ambient. There is an interesting discussion supporting this by John Dilaberto of Echoes Radio in his archives at: TimeWarped in Space. That page includes a lengthy discussion of Tangerine Dream's historic contributions in the context of space music, as well as newer artists who, as Dilaberto states in regards to one of them, "employs the vernacular of space music suffused with much more contemporary electronica grooves and structures." That's just one example, but it shows there are third parties with other viewpoints. In this case the alternate viewpoint is sourced, from a radio show with a long history, presented by an on-air host, interviewer and writer considered by many to be a recognized authority in this field, and unconnected with Hearts of Space. Parzival418 06:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The context of Diliberto's comments, and the content of his broadcasts, do not support your POV. In any case, I do not propose to engage in further discourse on this subject until the nature of various suspected sockpuppet accounts posting on these topics is clarified via a formal checkuser procedure. --Gene_poole 08:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Gene - I have only been editing for a couple weeks. During this short time, you've already accused me of being a sock puppet twice! What about assuming good faith and not biting the newcomers? Why are you so aggressive towards me just because I don't agree with your POV on a subject? I accept that you know who Dilaberto is and you don't respect him or his views. Even so, since he has a long history of creating and discussing content on the subject of this article and many other forms of music, even if you don't agree with him, what's wrong with including a reference to the stuff he's written in building consensus that can improve the article about Space music?

If you truly believe I am not an individual and I am actually a sock puppet of some other user, I warmly invite you to begin a formal procedure to find out if this is true or not. I can make this invitation because I know it's not true. If you don't want to begin the formal procedings though, then please stop accusing me!

You might consider that even if some of the other users you believe are sock puppets actually are sock puppets, and even if I, as an individual user, happen to agree with some of the statements of users who might be using the sock puppets you are researching... that does not make me a sock puppet.

Back to the subject of the article. You made a broad statement that "Diliberto's comments, and the content of his broadcasts, do not support your POV." What did you mean by that? Did you read the article I referenced? In what way does Dilaberto's article not support my suggestion that there are some types of spacemusic that are not ambient? Are you saying that ALL spacemusic must be ambient? Can you support that with citations?

Thank you for your kind attention and your considered response to my comments. Parzival418 09:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• "Statement two is a universally accepted self-evident reality." As an absolute generalization, that's inherently doubtful. But even if a lot of people believe that, statement two still requires a source.
• "It is therefore incumbent on you to provide sources in support of your POV." You deleted my 2006-10-23 classic edition of Wikipedia:Space music article almost in its entirely, and replaced with your own equally unreferenced edition. Therefore the current article has zero of my POV. The current opening statement in the article for which I had requested a {{fact}} tag citation is

"Space music is a type of ambient music."

Being similar to statement two, you wrote that opening statement, so it's your POV, not mine. If you want that statement to remain in the article, you will have to support it with a valid reference. According to WP:RS#How to cite and request a source,

"Any edit lacking attribution may be removed, and the final burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material."

Gardener of Geda attempted to source that article opening statement ("Space music is a type of ambient music") with the following reference:

^ "... Originally a 1970s reference to the conjunction of ambient electronics and our expanding visions of cosmic space ... In fact, almost any music with a slow pace and space-creating sound images could be called spacemusic." - Stephen Hill. (http://hos.com/aboutmusic.html)

Note that this reference does not say that "Space music is a type of ambient music." Furthermore, it only mentions ambient electronics, not ambient music. To the contrary, it supports a partly opposite view, that almost any music (which includes ambient music) having a slow pace and space-creating sound images could be called spacemusic. Alternative to deleting the opening statement, it needs to be modified so the reference supports it. A validly supported statement would be 'Some ambient music is a type of spacemusic.', However, that is not suitable as an opening statement for a space music article.
• "...I do not propose to engage in further discourse on this subject until the nature of various suspected sockpuppet accounts posting on these topics is clarified via a formal checkuser procedure." Since that could take a long time, I understand that you are standing aside from negotiating a talk page consensus with which to edit a sourced article. This means that if myself and/or other editors enter article statements with validly supporting sources, you may not remove them or make them source-invalid without first returning here to post and debate your objections, followed by an RfC if we do not consense.
Clearly understand, that if you repeat here your well-known style as a tendenciously reverting editor, it will not be tolerated by me. If you do not follow the rules for sourced statements with talk page debate and consensus, you will be reported for disruptive editing. Your tendentious history will be included in the report for any newer editor still unfamiliar with your username.
Good luck on your same-thread sock hunt. I doubt that you'll find any, but you are entitled to spend your time that way if you wish. Milo 11:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Space Music is related to, but not the same as, Ambient Music

There is a section on Talk:Ambient music discussing this same issue, so I thought I'd mention that here so we can all be "on the same page" so to speak...

I edited the intro tonight, to bring it into harmony with the mention of Space music on Ambient music. Both talk pages are discussing all the same points, so no need to repeat it all here.

Regarding Gardner of Gedas's Tentative New Article - I like the structure and recommend we use it. I like the idea of following the intro with a list of varying viewpoints, since this topic seems not to have consensus on one NPOV approach.

In the intro though, I would prefer to see a third point added (iii) that indicates some people find that space music is not always ambient. If Gardner of Geda is willing to accept this, I'd like to see the article take on more of the form he has proposed. Without that third option though, then we come back to the same issue we've not found consensus on yet...

Parzival418 08:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Tentative new article, version 2.

Hi-eeeee!! I've had this page off my watchlist for the last 5/6 days, and I see things haven't changed much. I've made a few minor changes to my article, which should go a long way to not solving the problem, but such is life, as they say. The infobox needs attention, and a big change I made was to get rid of the Notable artists section, as it's very silly. VERY silly indeed. I kept all the stuff about the "real space music" because .... well .... I like it. Here. Meh! Gardener of Geda | Message Me.... 00:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I looked up the word "silly" at M-W.com:

"1 archaic : HELPLESS, WEAK"

"2 a : RUSTIC, PLAIN b obsolete : lowly in station : HUMBLE"

"3 a : weak in intellect : FOOLISH b : exhibiting or indicative of a lack of common sense or sound judgment <a very silly mistake> c : TRIFLING, FRIVOLOUS"

"4 : being stunned or dazed <scared silly> <knocked me silly>"

"synonym see SIMPLE "

None of those definitions even remotely describe the Notable artists section. What is your real objection? If you simply don't like some or most of them, that would be an unattributed personal opinion, and you would have to do attributed research to back it up.

The process of ranking artists and composers is one of the most important steps in musicology. I suggest it's the most important step, since a music catalog or album sales figures are data so much larger and harder to manage. Furthermore, except for those few that were added later, I vetted those in the current list for notability with the HoS playlist server. It is also the most popular section to which the most passing editors, correctly or incorrectly, have contributed.

Therefore, having a notables list is musicologically critical, the current list is attributable, and I don't consense its removal.

Reasonable people can disagree as to who exactly should be on the list, based on various objective rankings. If the current list could be titled "Hearts of Space Notable Artists", and you wish to add a second list titled, say, "Album space music Notable Artists", and you can provide some kind of attributed rankings, that would be a reasonable way to procede toward my consensus with your Commonwealth viewpoint of space music. That would also help us figure out what "album space music" might formally be, at least by artist profile. Milo 18:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

References

Please note that this does not qualify as a reliable reference source as defined in WP:V. It appears to be the personal opinion of a music fan dating from 13 years ago. It is not an authoritative source. --Gene_poole 03:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It is in a University's domain, http://www.fiu.edu/ so, it is something more than the personal opinion of a music fan dating from 13 years ago; anyway it includes some personal opinions and some obvious neutral opinions.--Doktor Who 11:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It is the unreferenced personal web page of a student. It does not conform with Wikipedia requirements for reliable third party sources. --Gene_poole 11:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)