Talk:Dubstep/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Beats Per Minute

138-142BPM? Who came up with that? Dubstep is even slower than Hip-Hop, which is around 92BPM. 83.77.236.197 (talk) 15:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, you could think of 142bpm as 71bpm, it's the same pace, but just in double measures. The sources all have it as around 140. - filelakeshoe 15:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

yeah, it could be percieved as being around 69-71 bpm...

Often, a track's percussion will follow a pattern which when heard alone will appear to be playing at half the tempo of the track; the double-time feel is instead achieved by other elements, usually the bassline. An excellent example of this tension generated by the conflicting tempo is Skream's Rutten, which features a very sparse rhythm almost entirely composed of kick drum, snare drum, and a sparse hi-hat, with a distinctly half time implied 69bpm tempo. The track is instead propelled by a constant sub-bass following a four to the floor 138bpm pattern, and a sampled flute phrase.

--Kaini (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

But still, it's beats per minute, not bass per minute. So counting the drumbeat it's around 70 and not 140 because of the wobble bassline. 83.78.24.165 (talk) 15:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Beats per minute has nothing to do with drum beats, it has to do with tempo. The word "beat" in "beats per minute" is as in Beat (music). Tempo of classical music can also be expressed in bpm, and this has nothing to do with kicks and snares.

The reason we have to say 140 is that the sources say 140 - simple as that (see WP:V). If you want arguments for it being 140 rather than 70, consider that most dance music works in phrases of 16 bars. If you count a bar in a dubstep track at 70bpm, you'll find dubstep works in phrases of 8 instead. Also, despite there being less kicks and snares, 16th note grooves from hihats and small detail hits are still common in dubstep, which you'd have to count as 32nd notes if you counted it at 70bpm, which again is not characteristic of dance music as a whole. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter, there are arguments to say it could go one way or another, but we have to reflect what the sources say. - filelakeshoe 20:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

yep, like time signatures, it's entirely subjective. you could write 4 bars of 4/4 as 4 bars of 3/4 and a bar of 4/4, or as 4 bars of 7/8 and a bar of 2/4, or any other way you like, it's entirely down to which way makes most musical sense to the listener/reader. anyway, a lot of the less shuffled stuff like 2562 et al is decidedly 4/4, 140bpm in nature --Kaini (talk) 22:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Was a new genre classification really needed?

Dubstep seems to be what Trip-Hop, Electronica, Ambient and IDM could sound like anytime. 83.77.192.92 (talk) 07:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

it's probably easier to think of this in terms of a continuum... dub/kraftwerk/grandmaster flash/loads of other stuff led to jungle which led to dnb and sorta simultaneously 2-step which eventually lead to early dubstep stuff. meanwhile the ragga/ragga jungle thing and dnb and idm and basic channel and scorn and all that other stuff was going on. and the pervasive dub under it all. so maybe it's apt to say the dubstep article captures a particular moment or phase in the continuum of bass-heavy electronic music. but it's definitely a notable one and therefore worthy of an article. --Kaini (talk) 03:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

sonar and the other european festivals

Is there a way to maybe have a section mentioning the huge back to back support dubstep has had from nearly all the of the major european festivals in both 2007 , 2008? dubstep has headlined at Glastonbury(two years in a row), Roskilde, Sonar (Two years in a row now !), Bestival, Life Festival , Outlook, Dour Festival, Massive Attack's Southbank Festival etc etc. There has been some press on some of these festivals as well. What do you guys think? Seckle (talk) 08:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

i reckon we could incorporate that info, sure. dunno about a new section, but there's lots of sourceable material out there for sure. i have a few days off work, might gather some linkage tomorrow. --Kaini (talk) 23:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Massive Attack at Meltdown (as an aside, howlett getting on the dubstep wagon? awww... :( )

Mary Ann, Skream, and Kode9 at Sonar 2007 -Kaini (talk) 23:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

thank you

Just read through all that Kaini and Zeibura have to go thru in maintaining this page. Thank you guys for all the long work. It's a thankless task. I think the page is looking more and more decent recently. All the basics are covered. Seckle (talk) 08:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

you're welcome! sadly zeibura's on a wikibreak (he was an excellent editor) and i haven't seen p4k in a while, so i was glad to see you show up. inspired me to do something other than typo-fixing and reverting vandalism. would love to get more folk from dubstepforum involved. --Kaini (talk) 23:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Fantastic article. Great read, very informative!Judyholliday (talk) 12:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

i would

Highly appreciate it, if my submission were allowed to remain up. Its in now way spam, and it was written out of the knowledge I've achieved due to being a dubstep fan living in south florida. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smittysaint (talk • contribs) 22:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see wikipedia's policy on original research - all contributions must be verifiable and sourced, and your paragraphs were, like you just said, original research. If you can find sources to suggest the dubstep scene in south florida is in any way significant and verify what you've written, then add it back. Also, bear in mind Wikipedia is supposed to have global scope, so adding extensive information on regional scenes not significant to the development of the genre would ultimately overcrowd the article. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 00:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

well, they are booking awesome djs and as a writer who sees it with their own eyes, i feel that it definitely deserves a spot up there.

Smittysaint ^(Talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Well, I'm sure they're good DJs and all, but this sort of insider/unpublished information isn't verifiable and falls under the category of original research as Zeibura says above. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia relies on secondary sources for information. Wickethewok 14:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

britney spears and subbass

there is, believe it or not, a track entitled 'freakshow' on britney's latest album which has a proper 'wobbler' subbassline. i was taken aback by it - you can find it on youtube pretty easily. i wonder if that's worth a mention or verifiable in some form other than shocked forum posts. the vocal disc of pinch's album is extremely commercial as well. this inevitable (just like d'n'b :() assimilation into the mainstream might be worth sticking in at the end in some form or other. not dissing that pinch album btw - i love it. --Kaini (talk) 00:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow this is ridiculous. It probably is worth mentioning, and I think it's verifiable, or at least it's verifiable that some critics have talked about the song in those terms. Here are some sources:

• "When Team Britney require a dubstep track, for instance, they simply borrow some production tricks and make one. The result is "Freakshow", built around the "wobbler" effect that's a genre standby. A dubstep forum thread on the tune hit seven pages in 24 hours, mixing outrage and delight..."[1]
• http://blogs.ocweekly.com/heardmentality/new-releases/have-you-heard-of-this-britney/
• http://www.sputnikmusic.com/album.php?reviewid=14054
• http://arts.independent.co.uk/music/reviews/article3141456.ece

P4k (talk) 01:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

it's mental, isn't it? flavour du jour. i have a dread of burial's new disc becoming the coffeetable album of 2008. gonna have to think about how to phrase this (unless someone else wants a a crack). And the reviews of this album have me a bit intrigued, think i'm going to check it out. apparently Freescha produces a track on it as well...--02:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

GA passed!

And here are some minor suggestions;

• A relevant image would be nice at the start of the article

  i'm considering asking the photographer if they would release this photo to CC as an opener. or maybe this. opinions? also, GA! can i get a rewind on that one? --Kaini 02:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

  there is also [http://farm1.static.flickr.com/87/282300606_994493cc8e.jpg?v=0 this. which i think is not only really nice, but cc-by-sa-2.0 ;) --Kaini 03:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

  Those are good, but I don't think there's actually any space for a photo at the start of the article. If you look at other music genre articles (including good and featured articles) they just have an infobox like this one does.P4k 03:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

  That's no reason not to start a new precedent :) Then again, i fyou think it'd look worse...I dunno, I'd like it that way. Dihydrogen Monoxide ^♫ 06:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Should "Dubstep" be capitalised? (eg. "Interest in dubstep grew further...")

  I can set this one straight, nope. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 17:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

  Cool, thanks for telling me that. Dihydrogen Monoxide ^♫ 07:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• "(click to enlarge)" - Not needed, that's fairly self explanatory

   Done

• Nice audio! :) Just make sure not to have too many...2 nonfree should be fine
• Image:Skream1.jpg and Image:Mala(dmystikz).jpg could/should be on Commons.

  working on it --Kaini 02:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

   Done!

• There are a few redlinks which don't look too nice...create or remove.
• "(who has also included Dubstep tracks in his sets)[47] and included on a mix" - Should be a comma between the closing bracket and the ref.

   Done

• I don't think that many external links are needed, see WP:EL.

  I've added {{subst:nomorelinks}} to the top of the section, as there have been a lot of extra links being added and removed for not being particularly useful. All the links in the list at the moment are relevant tho, so I wouldn't know where to start if we really have to thin it all down. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 17:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

  In that case they may need better descriptions - "Mary Anne Hobbs" doesn't really tell you much... Dihydrogen Monoxide ^♫ 07:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

  It might make sense to remove Tempa since Wikipedia has an article about them.P4k 03:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Dihydrogen Monoxide ^♫ 08:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
• If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]
• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Dihydrogen Monoxide ^♫ 08:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Dubstep news service

If you are interested in keeping up with the latest news in the Dubstep area, Popround runs a regularly updated service pointing to latest Dubstep news/blog posts:

Popround Dubstep News

a bit out of date, shame good website

drama

sigh --Kaini (talk) 19:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

rant

Look on the bright side, that thread contains useful criticisms and makes up for that lack of peer review we got here.

This basically sums up why I'm on wikibreak at the moment. I'm going to do my honest job as a wikipedia administrator, and kindly remind everyone that WP:V and WP:RS must take priority in everything, basically what you said on the forum. I did do a few news searches for barefiles and couldn't find anything beyond one article which only mentioned it in passing, just listing the name and not saying anything about it or how it was any special. Searching for anything about breakstep doesn't seem particularly fruitful either.

There's a reason why, on another plane, I can't find many sources that talk about bassline house and niche apart from "it came from sheffield, people got stabbed, the club got closed down, oh yeah and heartbroken reached #2 and got played in cyprus", surrounded by loads of journalist baby talk. even I could add more to that article off my own head, and I'm not even from up north. The reason is that most "reliable sources" about new genres of music (e.g. what the national press and magazines write) just tend to say exactly the same thing.

In this article it's been a bit easier because of Martin Clark's pitchfork articles, which are invaluable pieces by a trusted music journalist who goes really deep into dubstep. Beyond that though, there isn't much else we can say unless we miraculously manage to convince the peeps at featured article review that any kind of consensus we can determine from the users of dubstepforum counts as a reliable source. Don't get me wrong, I wish we could, since I trust most of the users on that forum and because of these limitations, far more can be learned about dubstep reading those posts than any music magazine, newspaper or free encyclopedia. Any scholar would probably assert that both sources are equally (un)reliable. And once again, the fact that the content of the breakstep article was written by the same guy who we're citing as a reference yet copying some of it over would make this article unfeaturable due to original research just makes me want to skream.

Anyway, I've adapted one of Epithet's suggestions of listing some of the important websites in the lede, with reference to that article which lists barefiles and gutterbreakz in passing. Dubstepforum's already mentioned in a few of the references. The lede needs some more expansion anyways if we're ever going to get this featured. Also, the link to barefiles is still in the external links section. - Zeibura ^{( talk )} 02:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Wookie

Could he be one listed in 'estabilishing of sound' section? -- 86.57.254.215 (talk) 11:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

His 'Dirty Beats (Wookie's Dark Dub Mix)' from 2001 seems pretty dubstep. -- 86.57.254.215 (talk) 11:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thugstep

From the AfD for the article: This music "genre" appears to lack any reliable sources. All of the citations are either to unreliable sources (blogs/non-peer reviewed content) or to websites that do not explicitly mention "thugstep". Editors are welcome to google for themselves, but the limited results are not encouraging.

Please stop adding unsourced material and imaginary genres to Wikipedia for the purposes of advertising, anon. --Kaini (talk) 13:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, I will ask you to stop adding unsourced material to the article.

Here are your sources-

1. a blog
2. a thread on dubstepforum
3. a blog
4. a blog
5. a dubstep site with no mention of "thugstep"
6. a myspace page
7. a forum thread
8. a discogs page
9. a myspace page
10. a blog

These are not notable sources --Kaini (talk) 20:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

You haven't explained why this one is not a notable source. Though you tried it hard. -- 86.57.254.215 (talk) 09:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Just a slight correction here. Sources don't have to be notable - they do, however, have to be reliable. The Mashit.com link is not a reliable source, as it doesn't appear to have any guaranteed fact-checking or oversight. Additionally it doesn't even mention "thugstep". Wickethewok (talk) 22:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

whoops, yeah that's what i meant :P i was a bit flustered when i posted that --Kaini (talk) 23:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, the nintendub mix the anon editor linked is pretty good, a mix of nice bass, hiphop acapellas and 8bit sounds. still a genre of 1 or 2 artists, but at least an interesting one. --Kaini (talk) 23:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Children of men

First off, great article, guys. So much better than all the articles for other electronic genres. But the bit about Children of Men using dubstep. Either this page is wrong or Children of Men is, because it only has one Digital Mystikz track mentioned but here you've got kode9 and a few more too. I haven't seen the film so I don't know which is right. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 04:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

the film itself features anti-war dub by mystikz (one of my favourite dubstep tracks ever, incidentally). the soundtrack features additional material, as soundtracks are wont to do these days. that being;

• Witness (1 Hope)- Roots Manuva (not dubstep, but sorta proto-dubstep, and a cracking track)
• Backward- Kode9 And The Spaceape
• Money Honey- Pressure Feat. Warrior Queen
• Indian Stomp- Cyrus (Random Trio)

--Kaini (talk) 23:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Bad references, roots

References to Steve Gurley, El-B as early promoters of DS are not working. Further searching The Wire site results no el-b and a link to burial's interview in case of gurley. Discogs search on those four (el-b, bias, gurley, jay) results only el-b and jay having original dubstep production, but all those four have a massive of remixes in dark garage era (1999-2002?). Some of them should be moved to dark garage -- 82.209.225.33 (talk) 11:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

the references are to the printed copy of that month's wire, which contained an excellent primer on dubstep. it's not reproduced on the site, but it's a perfectly reliable and citable reference. --Kaini (talk) 11:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

anyway references like those do not suit the article. -- Werwerwer11 (talk) 11:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

i suggest you re-read wiki's policies on sources. --Kaini (talk) 11:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

i suggest my balls in yer mouth - no page no reference -- 82.209.225.33 (talk) 12:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL, please. and printed sources are actually preferred to internet ones as they are less subject to link rot and are generally more stable. --Kaini (talk) 12:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

that latest ref

there's actually a genealogical diagram/chart (by martin clark, i presume) in the liner notes. a minor obsession of mine is getting it onto wiki - would be great in MANY articles, (even as a navbar or something!) but i really can't see a way of reproducing it whilst adhering to GFDL :( --01:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This diagram shows that dubstep's origins is a 2-step garage by producers like Steve Gurley and El-B. So actually it was dark garage.--True Steppa (talk) 11:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

External links

Aren't there WAY to many external links? I understand that I was reverted when I removed all of them, but I almost figured it would almost be easier to add relevant links again instead of having to look through all of them :P Anyway, links to numerous blogs and radio stations? Why? As the warning says: "WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A COLLECTION OF LINKS". aktsu (talk) 00:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

there's been fairly extensive discussion here (check the archive) and on dubstepforum regarding this. mainly people complaining their link has been removed. the thing about this genre is a lot of it is internet-based. and as such a lot of the evolution is documented by some key sites, such as dubstepforum (where a lot of the artists interact with the fans/scene on a daily basis), getdarker, and martin clark's indispensable blog and columns in pitchfork. linking to things like these fall well within WP:EL. tell you what, give me a day or two and i'll do what i can to trim things down a bit. --Kaini (talk) 00:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "djmag" :
  • {{cite journal|title=The Dubstep Explosion!|journal=DJ Mag|date=2007-08-01|first=Emma|last=Warren|coauthors=|volume=4|issue=46|pages=p32|id= |url=}}
  • .
• "Clark3" :
  • [http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/feature/40344/The_Month_In_The_Month_In_Grime_Dubstep Grime / Dubstep | Pitchfork<!-- Bot generated title -->]
  • [http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/feature/10337-column-the-month-in-grime-dubstep Pitchfork Feature: Column: The Month in Grime / Dubstep<!-- Bot generated title -->]

DumZiBoT (talk) 22:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

"dark" garage

i am afraid i don't understand your reasoning here, anon. why limit the infobox to "dark" garage? show me an article called dark garage. i can certainly show you articles about 2Step garage and UK Garage, along with articles about Dub Music and Drum and Bass. your logic is flawed here - a closed-minded attitude to genre only limits the article. you are more than welcome to keep reverting me, i have given you my reasoning, which is logical, and i have no problem introducing arbitration to this dispute if needs be.

you have accused me of WP:OWN on my talk page; i simply want this article to be as good as it can be, and i cannot regard the addition substitution into the article of a sub-subgenre whose validity did not pass an AfD in the past to be constructive. --Kaini (talk) 00:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

(replicating some discussion from talk pages)

Hello, how about to check references in Dark 2step article. Most of them clearly state Dark 2step mutated into Dubstep. Or arent those references good enough for wikipedia? -- 86.57.139.141 (talk) 00:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

anyway, please take this dispute to the talk page of the article, where i've expanded on my reasoning a bit. sorry if i come across as a bit grumpy, it's just that i'm sick of this argument. and as i have explained over there, no WP:OWN implied. --Kaini (talk) 00:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

you will find that i have just WP:PRODded the article you mention, as the references are poor and it definitely does not pass WP:N in my opinion. --Kaini (talk) 00:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss it in here. Thanks. First reference is from british "Pitchfork" magazine where it is stated that dark 2step is a genre of music by putting ("nu dark swing") alternative name to it to article. Second reference is from german "Groove" magazine where it is mentioned about "dark 2step sound" as precursor to dubstep. Third reference is from canadian "Kick" magazine where both grime and dark 2step are mentioned as direct precursors to dubstep, btw dark 2step is called a "genre" in the article. Fourth reference is from australian "Cyclic Defrost" magazine, where dark 2step sound is described. Why they dont suit wikipedia?

So, please, stop unconstructive edits (like, adding nonsense template to article). By the way, there is no such thing as sub-subgenre. Thanks -- 86.57.139.141 (talk) 01:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

no, please discuss it on the talk page of the article, where anyone interested in the article can participate in the discussion. you are limiting the article. anyway from a musical point of view a lot of what Horsepower Productions did certainly could not be called 'dark'. indeed a lot of what Steve Gurley did might not be either. what you're doing is introducing, with subtlety, a point of view into the article. and that is not what wikipedia is about --Kaini (talk) 01:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, as the discussion touches at least two articles (Dark 2step, Dubstep), it hardly should be discussed at "Dubstep". Thanks. And, as seeing you are inadequate in calling citation from electronic music magazines "as point of view", and putting nonsense templates to the article, i am cancelling this discussion. See WP:OWN. Thanks. -- 86.57.139.141 (talk) 01:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

well, anonymous editor, you are welcome to keep reverting me, and i shall do likewise whilst remaining within the letter of wiki policy, if perhaps not the spirit. and if this drags on, i have no problem with introducing arbitration into the process. i am sick of having this argument. --Kaini (talk) 01:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

reverted. see comment. besides anything else, i think that dark garage introduces a POV issue. you are discounting very influential producers like zed bias and horsepower in the specificity of your additions. surely it is better to leave the genre at garage/2step without making this even more specific? it's an infobox. --Kaini (talk) 02:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

the infobox as it is at present

2-step garage and dark 2-step are both derivatives of UK garage. As I've stated, I'm perfectly willing to compromise (I'm interested in improving the 2-step article!) but seeing as UK garage is sort of progenitor of many of the rhythms and tropes of the sound, i really feel it needs to stay in the infobox. --Kaini (talk) 02:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

genres in infoboxes

current editors of this article might find this discussion interesting. --Kaini (talk) 21:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

references in the infobox..

...should not be necessary. Everything in the infobox should be a very quick summary of prose in the article dictated by the field names, which should be referenced within the article where it's written as prose. currently this is not the case, there is no mention of "dark 2-step" in the article except in the infobox, and if it's as easily sourcable as it seems then there should be. - filelakeshoe 23:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

exactly. please, anon editor, if you are going to include things in the infobox, back them up with improvements in the article.

like this. if you want to help, you should be improving the article, not engaging in an edit war over an infobox. --Kaini (talk) 12:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

anyway considering the debate raging at present which i linked to above, this might all be utterly moot soon. i am removing dark 2step from the infobox until material that passes WP:RS is added to the article to support it. i won't even get into my feelings regarding the article on that "genre", bar saying it's mergeworthy at best --Kaini (talk) 23:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Characteristics section

Look at how many times often is used in this section. Such use makes it sound as if there is no definitive nature to the genre and appear weaselly. Actually, this entire section presents an appearance when read, that dubstep can not be defined. Perhaps instead of using often so much, provide examples of use. What B-side releases contain these experiments? Which dubstep artists have incorporated a variety of outside influences, instead of some? What releases present a dark feel; tracks using a minor key and featuring dissonant harmonies such as the diminished chord, in place of frequently and often?

Dubstep's early roots are in the more experimental releases of UK garage producers, seeking to incorporate elements of grime into the South London-based 2-step. These experiments often ended up on the B-side of a white label or commercial garage release. Dubstep is generally instrumental. Like another, more vocal garage hybrid, grime, the genre's feel is often dark; tracks frequently use a minor key and often feature dissonant harmonies such as the diminished chord. Other distinguishing features often found are the use of samples, a propulsive, sparse rhythm, and an almost omnipresent sub-bass. Some dubstep artists have also incorporated a variety of outside influences, from dub-influenced techno such as Basic Channel to classical music or heavy metal.

Not knowing anything about dubstep, once I read this section, I stopped and almost went on to another article because I thought, well this doesn't tell me anything. Perhaps this can be rewritten and better defined? Only a suggestion of course. Cheers. --JavierMC 00:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

thank you for the feedback, javier. i kinda agree with you. i tried to declunkify the clunkiest sentence in that section tonight, but it's still maybe a bit fuzzy. to quote filelakeshoe from a related article (substitute your favourite genres ad hoc):

Bassline, dubstep and grime are all sub-genres of UK garage, hence why they're in the UK garage footer. UK garage as a "genre" is pretty contentious anyway, any musicologist would laugh in our faces.

i'll try and improve this section (the increasing influence from minimal techno and dub techno is mentioned elsewhere in the article, but maybe needs more incorporation into this particular section). --Kaini (talk) 00:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, from what you've said about weaselling, either the options are to imply that all "releases ended up on the B-side of a white label or commercial garage release", which is obviously rubbish, or "some of these experiments such as blahblah by blahblah blah remix and blah blah blah have ended up..." do you mean to say that that would sound better? It still sounds weaselly, and also adds a vanity-magnet for self proclaimed bedroom producers to add their tracks to the list. I do see what you're saying about dubstep being undefinable as a genre (although I would disagree in that I personally feel it's a lot more seperately definable than other electronic music "genres" such as bassline house - the stuff about the rhythm and the bassline dominating the track should, if it doesn't already, give off this impression), but people still know it as a scene and this does honestly seem to be the most effective way of describing the development of said scene without going into too much detail and making the article sound like a rant on a music blog. Cheers for the feedback though, will think about this some more. - filelakeshoe 01:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

to paraphrase kode9, what we are attempting to capture are snapshots of a transition in the hardcore continuum. there is no definitive moment when everyone stopped calling this stuff experimental garage, dark 2-step, nu dark swing, or whatever else and started calling it dubstep, despite whatever some book, magazine, academic publication or website says.

what i think we've done a good job on with this article with is documenting the evolution of a rather odd offshoot of DnB,garage,2-step, whatever into a sound that generates enough of a blip on the radar for trendy producers to use similar sounds on a britney track. the article is relatively neutral in tone and demarcating the borders within genres particularly within electronic music is a notoriously fuzzy endeavour. with this particular task, you will never please everybody. --Kaini (talk) 01:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

This was only my perception from reading the section. I guarantee you I have no expertize on the subject and when I was reading and kept encountering the use of often and other such vague phrasing, it just left me with the impression of a fringe genre. Maybe it can't be better defined, I just thought I'd leave the interested editors with my thoughts. But like Kaini says, not everyone can be pleased, I just wish I had some knowledge to help, but alas, I do not.--JavierMC 01:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The section now says "dissonant harmonies such as the flattened third within a riff". A tritone is not a flattened third (or a flattened third is not a tritone, however you want to look at it). Just read the tritone article! Second sentence - "The tritone is the same as an augmented fourth, which in 12-tone equal temperament is enharmonic to a diminished fifth" 87.80.191.149 (talk) 20:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Also a flattened third is hardly a "dissonant harmony", unless the piece is in a major key... am I to assume this was supposed to say flattened fifth? - filelakeshoe 21:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

yep, that should read flattened fifth, i reckon. --Kaini (talk) 22:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Category:Dubstep musicians

I'm doing it.. I hope it's ok --True Steppa (talk) 22:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

looking nice so far :) --Kaini (talk) 23:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

do we really need Category:Burial albums?

your input is welcome over at Category talk:Burial albums. not gonna CfD it yet, i just wanna see what people think. --Kaini (talk) 22:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Zed Bias

pretty notable artist. i just started the article. please check and improve/expand. thanks--True Steppa (talk) 23:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

i think i have some nice refs in my wire collection somewhere, both in reviews and in the dubstep primer article that's a big ref in this article. i'll have a look... --Kaini (talk) 23:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Hauntology music

what is that? --True Steppa (talk) 00:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

this is one of the other types of music that i'm fondest of at the moment. it is "haunted audio". music that sounds like it is haunted by the ghosts of the past. the name is based on a pun on ontology, almost a joke, made by Jacques Derrida. burial is often included in this genre because his music sounds 'haunted' by 'the ghosts of house and garage' as i have seen paraphrased in several reviews.

if you are interested, a very good place to start is with EVERYTHING released on Ghost Box Records and Trunk Records, as well as the BBC Radiophonic Workshop and maybe some Silver Apples,Broadcast or Stereolab as well. --Kaini (talk) 00:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

i mean how it's connected to the dubstep music? burial is not 'a genre' :)--True Steppa (talk) 00:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

indeed, and that is now fixed! man that's a lot of citation neededs :( --Kaini (talk) 00:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD: "Wonky"

Feel free to express your opinion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wonky (music) - filelakeshoe 12:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

wobbler bass

i've been thinking... would a subsection describing 'wobbler' bass in some manner be fitting under characteristics? it's very prevalent (perhaps too much) and it's pretty easily described (an LFO modulating the cutoff or occasionally some other element of a very low sine wave)... coming up with a subsection title other than 'wobbler' might perhaps be the biggest challenge :P --Kaini (talk) 00:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Earliest example of Dubstep sound ?

First Dubstep sounding track - Autchre - Anvil Empire EP - Track 4. Second Peng - 1995! —Preceding unsigned comment added by JaseFace (talk • contribs) 21:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting idea but lots of typo: the EP is named Anvil Vapre, artist is Autechre. There are similar tracks from that period that probably are not direct ancestors of Dubstep but keep a certain resemblance. Just as the rhino doesn´t descend from the triceratops, I guess.195.46.247.178 (talk) 08:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Pitchfork Feature

It's called "this month in Grime/2-Step", not "Grime/Dubstep" as it says in the wiki article, so I guess it should be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.123.204 (talk) 02:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

no it isn't e.g. [2] --Kaini (talk) 12:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)