Talk:Electronic dance music/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Article title proposal

The article title, currently "Electronic dance", bugs me. "Electronic dance music" is a general descriptive phrase and not a specific genre in the same sense as "house music", for example. I think someone was trying to promote the phrase to genre status when in fact it's really a meta-genre, a general term used to refer vaguely to any number of genres that are made with electronic instrumentation.

I can see there's a parallel between using "rock" to mean "rock music" and using "electronic dance" to mean "electronic dance music", but it seems rather awkward here. I propose renaming the article. Any objections/concerns? Does the fact that there are articles for electronic music and dance music affect the ideal course of action here? If anything, I think it'll be more intuitive for people to just link the phrase "electronic dance music" to this article rather than creating two links to the other articles. —mjb 23:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

If no one objects, I'm going ahead with the rename soon. —mjb 01:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. —mjb 04:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

June 2006 edits and reversions

I no longer agree with Wikipedia terms, therefore I ask you kindly to revert this article so that it will appear as it was before I had the stupid idea to edit and contribute. Thank you. skysurfer 00:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Prior to your/Brian G. Wilson's involvement with the article, it was of very poor quality, being not the least bit encyclopedic in its tone or content. Your attempts to improve it were somewhat contentious in terms of their content, but provided the impetus for me to basically redo the whole thing on June 4. While my version of the article is based on yours, it is separate and revised enough that you needn't worry about it being "your contribution" made under terms you no longer agree with. I would much rather have my version, not the old version, as the starting point for future edits. Therefore I've reverted to that version today, with minor changes to the external links section.—mjb 01:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Remove 'notable' sections?

I'm not a fan of the notable artists and labels sections. They really don't seem necessary to me. After mentioning what electronic dance music is and giving the reader a sense of this meta-genre's breadth, I think we should leave it to the genre articles to take care of mentioning what artists and labels are notable. There are just too many to name, if the entire realm and history of electronic dance music is under consideration. Any objections? —mjb 01:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, notable artists for the entire pseudo-genre of electronic dance music is retarded. Pioneers maybe, but artists of general note needs a compilation of all of the genres listed and what's the point? BarryNorton 15:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Saying an artist or label is "notable" is rather subjective. Unless there is objectively something notable (i.e. the artist uses a particular element in his/her music that is novel), these sections are best left out. I don't think EDM is really a conventional genre, but rather just a blanket term for a set of genres with similar elements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.132.62.102 (talk) 17:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree, please edit it as you see fit. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.101.73 (talk) 14:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge suggestion feedback

It has been suggested that this article be merged into the recent history section of the electronic music article. Here is my feedback on that: I am not in favor of deleting this article; I think it is a topic worthy of its own article, even though it doesn't need to go into great detail. I am in favor of summarizing its content in the electronic music article though. —mjb 01:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The subjects HAVE to be mentioned in the article about electronic music, however moving this entire article brings the other article out of balance. This notable DJ stuff for instance isn't really worth mentioning in Electronic music, as it would imply we have to add "notable artist" sections for the 10 other electronic genres too. Let's just keep each article what it's used for. Electronic music discusses the fact that electronic music has evolved and appeared in differents forms during the 20th century; while in this article, people may try to discuss the "dance" subculture and its associated genres --LimoWreck 20:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thank you

I see you restored my edits here and remarked the value of my contribution: it's ok to me, thx. Furthermore, I agree with the proposals you described in previous paragraphs.--skysurfer 14:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Mini-history merge complete

I finished with merging the histories of Electronic dance and Electronic dance music. There are still five revisions in the void which were the original redirect and a couple failed attempts to do copy/paste moves, etc. The ones I restored were a few pre-2003 edits and the most recent edits. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks! —mjb 14:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

"In the mid 2000s, other new bands like Tony Reed and Synthetik FM began to fuse rave styles of music with synthpop and new wave and use the new medium of the internet to distribute their music."

This fragment was posted by user Qabbalah on various topics that have to do with electronic music. The list is actually pretty long. User Qabbalah appears to be Tony Reed himself - he is using that nick on myspace.

To my opinion this is shameless self promotion.

Disco VS Dance Music

Sometimes I have the impression that the people writting the history of electronic music are in their 20's and have no idea how things actually went.

After Disco and before House, there was an electronic pop genre of music that we simply called "Dance Music". Some called it Club Music. That started when more and more disco music began to be entirely electronic (or what we called at the time, synth music), and is pretty much a genre that encompassed Hi-NRG, Eurodance, and all sorts of other forms, including the more danceable synth new wave hits. "Dance Music" wasn't necessarely pop or mainstream, most hits were meant for a specialized crowd. People like to make believe that "House" music somewhat existed since the very "early" 80's, or late 70's, because certain DJ like Frankie Knuckles were hot at the times. But these DJs were playing "dance music", back then. That is what was new about their sound. They were beyond disco and embraced the sounds of the 80's. The term "House" meant absolutely nothing outside a small circle in Chicago until about 1987. And at that time, the typical remix of a Madonna tune was still a "dance" remix (that until Vogue). Yet by "dance", it was not a "disco" remix. Disco disappeared around 1982, as it was pretty much transitting towards Hi-NRG, itself merely one of the various styles of "Dance Music".

So there is an important "club" musical transition that is generally missed in historical surveys between Disco and the House/Techno of the late 80's. This article or some article should really be written specifically about that movement, "Dance Music", to not confuse with the more general use of the expression.

Cedric Caspesyan

• I agree that this article is far from comprehensive and complete. It'd be great if you could add some information regarding the above to the article. Wickethewok 19:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

if you're going to add any of this then do with with references because i've never heard that opinion before. the history of the term house is not the history of house music, and anyway it being regional is no proof that it didn't exist.

"Five-figure salaries"

In the "Notable artists and DJs" section:

"Some DJs [ . . . ] have reached true superstar status and can command five-figure salaries for a single performance."

This means nothing in an international context. Five figures in what currency?

-84.193.162.115 20:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comments: Page move and major content changes (closed)

Resolved

 – keep page name - no active discussion; no consensus to change title

• Shall this page be titled Electronic dance music or Electronic music (popular & dance)?

• Which version of the page is better for continued editing at this point?

This page was moved/renamed from Electronic dance music to Electronic music (popular & dance) by someone, without consensus, along with major changes to the content causing loss of information, and with duplication of information from Electronica.

The changes were reverted but there was much confusion, so I don't know which page this will be on at the time someone is reading this.

Here is the diff showing the changes including loss of content, and addition of content from Electronica that does not belong this article.

• The prior version was here: Electronic dance music.
• The extensively modified version is here: Electronic Music (popular & dance) (this version includes much information copied from the Electronica article). Changes are continuing; I'm sure it will look different soon...

Note that the history is moved with the page, so it's not clear which page the history will show up on now, until this is resolved.

This page is about Electronic dance music, but after those changes it would be about something else.

The pages at Electronica and Electronic music have information about other sorts of popular electronic music genres, but if Electronic dance music is removed, the page about electronic music for dancing and club nightlife would be simply missing.

All comments are invited.

--Parsifal _Hello 08:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Without commenting on the content of the article, I'll note that Electronic Music (popular & dance) is at the very least incorrectly capitalized. See WP:MUSTARD#Capitalization. --PEJL 09:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

In his motions to make these moves:

1. "Electronic dance music" to "Electronic music (popular & dance)"
2. "Electronica" to "Electronic music (popular & dance)"

The primary citation that User:Susume-eat has provided is that of "common sense". This goes against the very grain of the notion that sources and verifiability are needed, in proportion to the magnitude of the change one is to make. In order to merge three articles into one, the burden placed on these sources is quite substantial. On the contrary, however, Susume has insisted that he needs no sources, and "only common sense". However, those interested in preserving the current page structure are demanded to provide sources, against some kind of ultimatum he has declared.

Aside from "common sense", Susume has offered the similarity of the words "electronica" and "electronic", and a quotation from Ishkur's Guide to Electronic Music.

Ishkur's Guide comes with the disclaimer: "[The Guide's] purpose is to entertain before it informs. I suppose it could be used as a credited source or educational primer, but that's not recommended since I made most of it up. Several biases here are celebrated lavishly..." and so on.

I have provided a quotation from Computer Music Journal, which qualifies the term "electronica" to refer only to a subcategory of all electronic music, and, at the same time, uses the term "dance-based electronic music", with the implication that this "dance-based" music cannot comprise the entirety of "electronic music". This stands in contrast with Susume's statement: "Not Electronic Dance Music - it does barely exist in the media".

All of the above can be found at Talk:Electronica. –Unint 16:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello Poisoning_the_well , Straw_man I can see you from 20 km away... hello! ^-^--Susume-eat 22:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

There are no logical fallacies in the above discussion, and if like those, your distraction by mentioning incorrect fallacies is a Red herring. If you have something productive to add, please provide some references that support your contentions. So far, you've done nothing but move things around that other people wrote and complained that there are no references. You've added no information of value to Wikipedia and no references, except one dictionary definition that was off-topic and misplaced, and that I helped you by showing you where and how to include it. (Did you say thanks? Of course not.) Please show us your research and sources. --Parsifal _Hello 23:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Unint, there are no sources to indicate any problem with the title of this page. Electronic dance music is simply electronic music for dancing. It's a notable, verifiable topic and needs a page.

The page needs improvement; it needs references and expansion. It seems like much content from Electronic music refers to dance music and should be transferred here. But there is no reason not to keep this page name. --Parsifal _Hello 18:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit comments and reverts

Please stop regarding Susume as a vandal or I will report you for violating WP:HAR, WP:NPA and WP:OWN. Doktor Who 01:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

templates and infoboxes

And where are the sources on templates and infoboxes, eh? Who says that a certain genre is a subgenre of some other genre? Can't you see at least the big mistakes in thses templates? their inconsistency? Do I really need to explain? And who say that this topic doesnt belong to formal musicology? Please note, musicology and musicologists, we dont need sound engineers, computer programmers, journalists and djs here, just musicologists [ well, real musicians would be welcome as well (^_^) ] .--Doktor Who 01:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Two points, Doktor.

1. No encyclopedia would be complete without addressing each facet of the human experience. Academia is only a part of that. Nobody said that musicology should be left out, but it can never be the sole source we draw upon.
2. To support that statement, I offer another quote from the source I provided earlier, addressing electronica in general and glitch specifically: "Most of the work in this area is released on labels peripherally associated with the dance music market, and is therefore removed from the contexts of academic consideration and acceptability that it might otherwise earn."[1] –Unint 01:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and the templates. I am not their greatest fan either, but problematic templates and infoboxes are widespread across Wikipedia: many editors forget that they should summarize the article, and instead place undue weight on tailoring them. Ideally, they would be a brief version of sourced information in the article body. –Unint 02:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

PDid you know? i strongly suspect, due to time signatures, that all the ppl im talkinm with right now, are the same person.Doktor Who 02:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Requested Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Also, in the future, please note multimoves when the proposed target of the move is not a redirect. Dekimasuよ! 02:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

---

Genres link to "Dance music" on thousands of songs/artists etc. (EDIT: 2396 articles linking in total) these refer to what is in the EDM article. what was at dance music before was moved (unapposed) to "dancing music" [it is the traditional accompanyment]. This was then moved back illegally, with no discussion etc. ~ Bungalowbill Nov 1 2007

• Object - Fix the links then, or request someone with a bot to fix them. "Dance music" is clearly a general term with many different definitions across different cultures and time periods. To limit the article "dance music" to a modern Western view of "dance music" is narrow and culturally/temporally biased. Wickethewok 15:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Object I am not at all sure that all these "thousands" speak specifically about electronic dance music. The links to EDM are important in articles that specifically talk about EDM. If an EDM album describes its genre as DM (without "E") in its release info, then it is not your job to "fix" this. If and EDM album cover describes it as EDM, it is yor job to ensure the wikilink to EDM. `'Míkka 15:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Also, I'd like to point out there is a section in Dance music labeled "electronic" which features a "main article" link to Electronic dance music anyway, so its not like its even an entirely inappropriate link anyway. Wickethewok 16:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• The phrase "Dance music" is most commonly refering to "EDM", and EDM is not a phrase which is used often by the general public. If this article were moved to "Dance music" and a header noting that the article refered to the modern electronic variety, and then linked to "dancing music" for what is currently at the dance music article, then i don't see how there would be a problem.
  google backs this is up. all but one (on the first page) are refering to electronic dance music, with the other refering to 70's dance.
  also please note both Míkka and Wickethewok are significant contributors to the current "dance music" article and therefore have an interest. bottom line: anyone going to the "Dance music" article is most likely looking for EDM, not music which is a traditional accompaniment to the art of dancing.
  if it is not clear then the proposal is that the current article at "dance music" would be moved (back) to "dancing music", or an alternative title (traditional dance music, dance(music), etc)Bungalowbill 16:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Again, if you used the phrase "dance music" in an African country or somewhere like India, it means something entirely different. The supposedly "common" usage as you call isn't common at all throughout the world and reflects a Western bias. Googling for an English phrase will obviously return English-biased results. Just because when you and I refer to "dance music" we mean "electronic dance music" doesn't mean the rest of the world does. Heck, there wasn't even EDM 30 years ago! Also, I haven't really worked on this article before except for reverting vandalism or removing crappy content, not that its even relevant. Wickethewok 22:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

i am not suggesting to delete all the information at the current article, just move it (and link clearly to it). The point is people on the english wikipedia will find the article they are looking for /quicker/easier/more often etc (and the links from music will be correct). The article at "dance music" now also reflects a western bias; i see no bhangra or tribal dancing music listed. sorry to state your involvement inaccurately. If there is a new meaning to "dance music" in 30 years, i expect wikipedia will link to that primarily. Bungalowbill

• Oppose WP:Requested moves is not the proper forum to handle this dispute. It is possible that Dance music should be a disambiguation page, but I would prefer to see the summary article that's currently there develop into a good article that covers all the kinds of music people dance to. Ewlyahoocom 03:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

what is the "proper forum to handle this dispute" then?, also the article has been there for a long time and developed little. ~ Bungalowbill

• Oppose. Dance music includes many forms of music, including Dance music (popular), Dance music (traditional), Electronic dance music, and probably more. The main article at Dance music should use WP:Summary style as a main disambiguation page with short summaries of the different types, and each summary can refer to the appropriate "main article" for each type. --Parsifal _Hello 03:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Trance BPM Categorisation

Should trance be in the BPM categorisation list? It's not present in the reference the list was taken from. YellowFever 16:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Page name change

Perhaps electronic dance music should be retitled to Dance music (electronic) as a compromise and more importantly so that the title matches both Dance music (popular) and Dance music (traditional). Having Dance music be a summary page is a fantastic idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonyfey (talk • contribs)

• I don't see why "Electronic dance music" isn't acceptable. Its a widely used term thats neutral and doesn't have to bother with any of that parentheses business. This would be akin to titling the article about electronic sports "sports (electronic)". When a term for something already exists, there's no need to disambiguate. WP:DAB states it is rarely appropriate to use an adjective this way and it is "usually better to rephrase the title to avoid parentheses." This seems to be pretty clearly against the current title of "Dance music (electronic)". Also, it was a bad idea imo to move it without getting additional input first. You can't simply decide that something no one has brought up is an acceptable compromise - both sides have to agree that it is in fact a compromise. Also, anyone interested in improving this article should do so using sources. Its really never an improvement unless the info is cited. Wickethewok 17:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• I agree with Wickethewok. Electronic dance music is a known term that has even been the topic of studies by academic institutions. There are many book references about this. I added one to the article today. Also: it's not right to say you want to move the page and then go ahead and move it without waiting to let people discuss the idea. So I moved the page back from the incorrect title change. The title electronic dance music is correct and is supported by lots of references that can be added to the article. Also - there was already a discussion about moving the page a week ago (above) and it was agreed not to change the name. --Tikilounge 18:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Ambient?

Ambient music is not "dance music". Some derived genres may be (ambient techno, ambient house, ambient dub), but ambient music in its entirety definitely is not. In any case, I could not find any sources stating that ambient OR one of its derivative forms is "electronic dance music". I'll remove it from the list now. If anyone finds a source stating ambient or any of its subgenres are "dance music", great, but until then it does not belong here.80.128.79.51 (talk) 23:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Ahem. Why, seriously, *why* is essentially beatless music classified as part of 'a broad set of percussive music genres'? Any actual reason or source? Citing the Ambient music article: "Stylistic origins: 20th century classical music, Electronic Music, Minimalist music, Kosmische Musik, Musique concrète, Space rock". Now, this one: "It sometimes encompasses music not primarily meant for dancing, but derived from the dance-oriented styles.". Neither of these definitions fits!80.128.95.16 (talk) 01:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• I agree, so I've boldly removed it from the list. If anyone disagrees, please say so here. Wickethewok (talk) 02:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Electronic Dance Music

This music is simply called `Dance music`. Why did Wikipedia rename dance music to electronic dance music? Articles such as IDM say "EDM" like it`s a genre name people use in real life. Wikipedia is pushing out knowledge made famous from Wikipedia. Jesus, "EDM", who says that? Wikipedia and a minority of people. The article called "Dance music" is about all kinds of dance music, fair enough. The term Electronic Dance Music is one made famous by Wikipedia, Dance music is used in real life to refer to the same thing. When kids on the street start saying EDM, it`s because of Wikipedia, which is wrong because Wikipedia is supposed to represent knowledge not invent new stuff and make unfamous stuff famous and push unconventional terms. The article should refer to "dance music" because that is what it is called in real life. I ask anyone who calls by here in future to have a think and leave an opinion, even if a long time has passed from the date of this post. Thank you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.215.53.124 (talk) 04:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Who gives a shit? Wikipedia introduced me to electronic dance music. The name sticks in the mind better coz it means dance music made on a computer rather than your next door neighbours bongos.　EDM is a cool name coz saying EDM is a doddle but saying Dance music is what everyone else does. Yes I never heard EDM before reading Wikipedia. It rolls off the tongue. E.D.M. Be unique, be fashionable, be cool!

• The term EDM has nothing to do with Wikipedia, from what I can see the use of the term was established by musicologists studying electronically based dance music within the academic sphere. Dance music has existed for thousands of years, there are many styles throughout many different cultures. For individuals wishing to study the history of electronic music that has been produced solely for the purposes of dancing, EDM would seem to be a useful term, if only to differentiate this music from other types of dance music. Semitransgenic (talk) 16:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Whether you like it or not, EDM is the official label for this kind of music. Not all dance music is electronic. This should not even be a subject of discussion as it is out of the question. Anyone who labels EDM as "Dance Music" clearly doesn't know what they're talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.145.224 (talk) 18:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

BBC Radio 1 in the UK calls it dance music and has millions of listeners. In the UK commercial radio like Virgin and music magazines such as Sound on Sound refer to dance music. EDM didn`t exist in the UK mainstream media. Where are you? Some of you guys said "Out of the question? Who gives a shit?" This is a talk page for christ`s sake. There`s was no need to be rude. I haven`t even edited. Sorry for questioning something as weird as this EDM name which isn`t used in the UK. Wikipedia has a big problem with people trying to make things up so I think this deserves questioning and discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.215.53.124 (talk • contribs)

Just shut the fuck up right now Stupid argument stupid people.............. EDM is the name...... end of story. END OF. got it?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Logcabinwoman (talk • contribs)

Please remain civil when discussing things. Thanks. Wickethewok (talk) 22:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

sorry i was drunk. EDM is the name though, sober or drunk. when are these peopkle going to realise? whats the point of arguing? listen to the experts. look theres so many books out there written by USA universitys that thought up EDM and wikipedia is rightly IMHO taking EDM as it is much much much easier to say. ill say it again listen to the experts!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Logcabinwoman (talk • contribs) 23:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Outside of the US, it is known simply as "Dance Music". The "E" prefix is a recentish affliction now that mainstream US radio is getting on board. It seems therefore that we must kowtow to the whims of our former colony! Mongoletsi (talk) 11:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Simply because commercial radio stations and mainstream sources label it "Dance music" does not justify it's labeling as simply "Dance music". EDM isn't some made up term. It's a blanket term used for dance music that uses electronic elements by professionals and those of us in the business. I apologize if I sounded rude (I didn't mean to), but this is an issue that has been done to death. People profusely mislabel things in our industry and call our terms "weird" (and it's really irritating to us). I don't think it make sense to use colloquial labels here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.132.62.200 (talk) 16:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

all i want to say is] you guys should be more polite and listen to others arguaments. everyone's got their opinion... you scared away someone by being mean and rude... weak et lame.............. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranchsaladsolid (talk • contribs) 06:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed - guys, don't bite. Wickethewok (talk) 15:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It's called "dance music" in Britain. Other encyclopaedias write "dance music (popular music)". The essay has dance music written down. "EDM" and electronic dance music are new to me and sound made up to me. The reference is "Indiana University Press", which is not exactly an Ivy League university. You can't say the colloquial form is wrong. dance music is club culture invented by nightclubbers and producers all over the world, not an academic form invented in Indiana University. BBC Radio 1 is a major broadcaster, Sound on sound is the magazine for both professional and amateur music producers. Dance music has been documented in big selling magazines, compilations, newspapers and so on. It's going to end up as dance music because wikipedia relies on verification and references from high quality sources of information to put a cork in cheeky attempts to bias things. Read the guidelines if you don't believe me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gargantuan Peeder (talk • contribs) 12:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC) Ex post facto -sorry! Retitle to "dance music (popular music)" to make it in line with other encyclopaedias is a recommended notion. References to dance music in the essay should read "dance music", not EDM nor "electronic dance music". The fact that the choonz depend on electronics deserves a shoutout. Sick how many lies there are on Wiki rofl. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gargantuan Peeder (talk • contribs) 13:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• It seems quite naive to be calling EDM "popular" when in fact it's far from it. If you retitle to dance music (popular music), then you imply that all dance music is electronic, when it clearly isn't (well, perhaps where you come from it is, but it isn't over here); so yes, I can say that "Dance Music" is the wrong label. It's like using a hatchet when you need a scalpel. It's too broad, and can send the wrong message. We have to accept that there is no "proper" definition of EDM or what some of you are calling "Dance Music (popular)", but it's something we can hear. Sometimes what we hear cannot be said in writing, because we don't have a good system in place to describe it. Many scientific concepts could not be explained without the use of some previously developed infrastructure (i.e. terms, other concepts, etc). In the case of EDM, this infrastructure is absent. Additionally, there are some tracks that constitute a "fringe group". In this group, we would all disagree over what is "EDM" or what is simply dance music without electronic components. We can wait for someone at Yale or Harvard or Oxford or McGill to go define it for us, but the fact is: none of them has done so. So what do you do when our treasured "elite" schools don't have an answer? It would be degrading to those of you who don't or did not attend these Ivy schools. The fact is that the best researchers may be at these institutions, but that does not mean those at other schools cannot produce solid research under peer review. As an academic investigator myself, I know well that we cannot sit around lacrimating over lack of "guidance" from the Ivies. We need to use terms that most accurately and clearly describe what we're trying to convey. Otherwise, we might as well delete this page altogether while we wait for your "verifiable" data from the Ivies.

You're also taking usage out of context. BBC Radio 1 needs to make itself accessible to the common listener. EDM is a term only used among those of us die-hard fans, and we stand by it. Sound on Sound is a production magazine. Not all producers who read it produce using the kinds of electronic sounds we hear in EDM. They might be using recorded samples and putting it all together to make something most of us would not consider EDM, despite being produced on a computer. While I agree that EDM is not a particularly well known term, most other terms are severely flawed and convolute the true nature of the music. I'm not going to give you a whole rant about how only the few "true" EDM listeners can truly appreciate or defined the music, but I cannot agree with your proposed title of "Dance music (popular)" or "Dance Music (popular music)". The previously proposed title "Dance Music (Electronic)" makes far more sense, but it would be a fallacy to neglect to mention the acronym "EDM" or the term "Electronic Dance Music". This is still a developing music, one that is striving for definition. I say leave the page as it is. Even the microRNA page is missing a lot of stuff, and Carlo Croce, one of the leading experts on the topic isn't even cited.

The "Dance music (popular music)" labels are inherently flawed. It's not surprising though as there's still quite a commotion over the differences between trance and house. I am sorry that the fact that EDM is a real term people use sickens you; ignorance followed by novel concepts can make many people dizzy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.55.81.68 (talk) 06:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hrmm. Your opinion is running Wikipedia, not facts and sources. Fail. The name is "dance music". Shame trolls can't grasp this fact. Inventing new genre names, spreading minority names and cranky neologisms ain't what Wikipedia is about. "EDM" belongs in the rubbish bin. Minority sources back it up, so it deserves a slight mention, however it is not the main name in use sorry. I expect it to pop up in newspapers now, based on people reading this made up cranky tripe on Wikipedia. Shame the trolls get their way. What happened to the ideal of making a great encyclopaedia? EDM trolls and cranks, for shame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.225.210 (talk) 09:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

THERE ARE MORE TYPES OF DANCE MUSIC BEYOND ELECTRONIC MUSIC. Salamibears58 (talk) 22:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)Salamibears58

Genre classification list

The reference supporting Hillage and Giraudy's list of genres by bpm was removed here by User:Semitransgenic as a "self-published source". With the ref not there mentioning them is pretty meaningless, and in any case the list as it is now is completely different from theirs. We should either add the ref back and change the list back to support it, or find some other way of referencing a list of genres by bpm. - filelakeshoe 15:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• While it may be self-published, these are two figures who have been in the music scene for a long time and could probably considered fairly reliable. I believe WP:RS does allow for self-published sources to be used in situations such as this. However, it would be nice to have additional sources and cite their various numbers. Before, I thought I had put the ref back - I didn't realize it had been removed even earlier. It would be nice to replace it with a better source in the future. Wickethewok (talk) 15:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

  I'm sort of tempted to agree, the source would be unfit if the statement were saying "the correct classifications are as follows" using the source to support it. But as it's made clear its the opinions of two (fairly prominent) figures it seems better than having no source and opening the floodgates. - filelakeshoe 15:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• I just found this book on Amazon with the search-inside-this-book feature - http://www.amazon.com/Remix-Electronic-Explosion-Bruce-Gerrish/dp/0872887405/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1220974928&sr=8-5. It has some BPM listings that we could use also. Wickethewok (talk) 15:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit]

• I'd like to add also, that a lot of hardcore is in the 160-180bpm range, and is not strictly 180bpm+, let alone the fact that hip hop is not edm. Hip hop is not edm, dub is very arguably. Trip hops, bpm is about right. At 100 ambient should defintely be mentioned. Breaks should also go in with techno/trance. This page need some serious work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.206.52 (talk) 12:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Personally, I hate the term Electronic Dance Music. We never needed it before, if you said "Dance Music" people automatically knew you were talking about House or Techno. But since so many morons call any Top 40 song with a kick drum and a hand clap "Dance Music" now, it is almost necessary to make the distinction so the same morons don't assume that you are talking about every song that they danced to at a wedding or the junior prom.

Signed ElectronicDanceMusic.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eborg9 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Simplified EDM timeline

Hello,

I have made a timeline of the different EDM musics. I think it would be simplier for people to have a visual document to sum up all the evolution. As I am not the best specialist of EDM, I want some opinions about this document. I can fix some mistakes on it. I know that it will not be easy that everybody agrees as a music never entirely appears in one year but this is just a glance. It's non exhaustive as it is made for ordinary people and it must not be too much complicate.

I will transfer this file to commons when it will be approved. This document is made to be universal. However, if there is too much difference between English culture and, for instance, French culture, so this document will be suited for English culture only.

Here is the document :

Ftiercel (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Does this information come from a reliable source of some sort?

Mainly from Wikipedia information, with the help of my own knowledge and the date of some EDM musics.Ftiercel (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that I don't think there is any clear (that is, non-controversial) line of descent.

I agree but we can already found the influence in the Wikipedia articles.Ftiercel (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, what exactly is "hardtec"? I don't think I've heard of that before. Wickethewok (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

If I trust my knowledge, it was first named "techno". Then, the term techno has started to be used as a generic term for all the EDM so some people sometimes rename techno hardtechno or hardtec. I think I will replace hardtec by techno.Ftiercel (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Good effort but information that is "Mainly from Wikipedia...with the help of my own knowledge and the date of some EDM musics" constitutes a violation of WP:OR. Better if you could find a secondary source that has already created such a time-line and then reference that. Measles (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I said "with the help of my own knowledge" to say that I didn't stupidly copy/paste information from Wikipedia articles but I will search references to add.Ftiercel (talk) 05:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

but articles cannot be based on personal knowledge that's the whole point of WP:NOR. Besides, there are a number of significant inaccuracies, here are a few: techno and house were not originally disjointed streams, no mention of synth pop, or electro, both of which connect to techno, funk and disco also influenced techno, and acid took it's own trajectory out of house and the distinction between acid and techno was blurred at one point during the early 1990's. Also, it is not accurate to present D&B as simply a product of techno & breakbeat because, other than techstep, it isn't. The chart is an oversimplification. There are plenty of good sources to clarify all of this, check them out. Measles (talk) 11:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

sorry this is all wrong lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.82.71.249 (talk) 14:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, this diagram is quite wrong. Specifically, the term EDM didn't refer to Disco. Disco is a precursor, yes, but the term EDM emerged in the 2000s. Trying to turn back the clock is somehow applying some sort of 'notability' to the term.Danceking5 (talk) 05:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

"Notable artists and DJs"

I Think this should be removed as they are parts of different genre's and there isn't much of a point in keeping that there when people can just look at the genre that they wants' page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.101.73 (talk) 09:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It also should be removed, because it appears as an advertising page, and makes this page look unprofessional. There are hundreds of producers of EDM who are more notable than the DJs you have listed, but I notice they aren't listed. If this page were about DJs, then maybe list them, but this isn't a DJ fan club page. I say remove them. You guys can decide.Danceking5 (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Need help to improve my article

I just made article about Clubbing as a subculture. I need more editors on order to helm me extend it and improve it, so I was free to start discussion here since this is pretty related article. --Nemanjanede (talk) 14:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Image

I agree that this article needs images, but images should be illustrative, not just decorative, like this one which User:Alexia777nasice keeps adding. Maybe some images of DJs, synths, crowds in clubs even.. I'm sure there are plenty around on Commons. - fIlelakeshoe ^{(SAVE WIKIPEDIA)} 11:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

edm birthplace

http://big10housemafia.com/2010/12/17/old-school-kicks-brand-new-tricks/

can you add the picture to the page? its edm birthplace! chicago, warehouse! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.82.71.249 (talk) 14:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

New Wave

It isn't exclusively an electronically-driven genre. Plenty of guitar driven bands were part of New Wave and were part of it's influences. Should it really be included in the electronic subgenres list? Theburning25 (talk) 05:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Genres list

"Some genres, such as Electro, Electronica, House, French House, Progressive House Trance, Uplifting Trance, Psychedelic Trance, Rave, Remix, Techno, Gabber, Hardstyle, Dubstyle, Hardstep, Dubstep and Bassline are primarily intended to promote dancing. Others, such as Ambient, IDM and VGM tend to be associated more with focused listening than dancing."

My problems with this genres list are:

• it's too long. This article should be easy to read for the average reader. Listing house, french house, progressive house; trance, uplifting trance, psytrance; hardstyle, dubstyle; and "hardstep" instead of just drum and bass is just pointless. These labels mean absolutely nothing to most people out there, so listing a few of the ones they may actually have heard of (house, techno) is the best idea.
• it's not accurate. Wasn't "electronica" intended to define music which fits into the second category? VGM is not "experimental", and that word is meaningless. "Remix" is not a genre by any stretch of the imagination.
• it's original research anyway. If we could find a decent source which has a list like this we could resolve it.
• editorial note, genre names are not proper nouns. They do not require capitalisation. See Wikipedia:MOS-CL#Musical_and_literary_genres

This article would be better of free of "lists" of anything, as they are potentially endless, and just attract people who love adding one more microgenre or artist to each list, which really contributes nothing to the page. - filelakeshoe 13:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree, list of styles is largely pointless. More generally, the article is a shambles, it needs a serious overhaul. Semitransgenic _talk. 17:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I am with you on both points. There is already a list article at List of electronic music genres in any case.--SabreBD (talk) 17:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree. We will always have to maintain those lists. Ftiercel (talk) 18:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Genres

"The presence of vocals and pattern of drum beats help differentiate genres of electronic dance music."

This doesn't really give a good description of how genres are differentiated. There's more to it than just drum patterns and vocals. I don't think there's any simple way to describe how to determine what genre is something is, so maybe this part should be removed. Mason092 (talk) 01:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

NPR piece and origins of the terms

Someone put a citation-needed tag on the claim that the term electronic dance music and its abbreviated form EDM first appeared in the late 1990s. 24 hours later, the entire statement was deleted as "dubious". Come on, guys.

User:Semitransgenic and I were just discussing this on my talk page. The term appeared in 1995 and beyond in the music industry press and in academic writing; a simple search of Google Scholar and Google's archive of Billboard magazine reveals this much. Semitransgenic says the EDM abbreviation appeared in academic literature around then, too. As reported in the recent NPR piece, the term evolved to increasingly exclude relatively underground styles like (pure, older-form) techno, and instead coming to encompass club-friendly and live-event "big tent" hybrid styles.

So, we might have to be careful not to insist on any particular "first" appearance of the terms, but it's not at all dubious that the second half of the 1990s are when electronic dance music, if not also EDM, came into common usage as a genre name. Nevertheless, it's true that we need better citations in the article. I've gone ahead and edited the lead a bit to address the concerns, but we still need to get an early reference for EDM, and there's a lot of info in the NPR piece which still needs a home here:

• EDM as a term "has been adopted by a primarily American audience" who apply it to relatively commercialized "big tent electro-house, American dubstep," etc.
• "EDM is a pop-driven, mostly high-energy, commercial strain of dance music."
• Big names in EDM currently are the highest-paid DJs in the world: David Guetta, Calvin Harris, Swedish House Mafia, Tiesto, Deadmau5 and Skrillex.
• Techno is not EDM (this contradicts the lead sentence of the techno article). Deep house is not EDM.
• Techno and deep house sets tend to be slow-building and "tracky" with a "groove", whereas EDM relies on dramatic build-ups, "drops", and breaks.
• EDM songs increasingly "hover in the three to five minute range and are heavy on swooning vocals and catchy melodies."
• Electronica was major labels marketing albums; EDM is indie labels offering free streams and downloads and using social media to attract sponsors and drive attendance at live events. (another possible ref for that)
• Electronica had some radio hits, but that exposure brought as much scorn as popularity, and the underground rave scene wasn't strong enough to support the scene and keep it going; in contrast, the strong live following, even for relatively unknown artists, is keeping EDM alive, to the point where it has "risen to '90s-level heights and beyond".
• The massive popularity and ease of production of EDM music, its increasing homogeneity, and performers' reluctance to change up their sets, is contributing to disillusionment and speculation of impending doom from within the scene (Deadmau5, WSJ and various critical headlines are cited).
• The popularity of EDM is spurring non-EDM artists to try to foster appreciation of non-EDM: Carl Cox and Richie Hawtin are curating events dedicated to non-EDM, but, to draw people in, the events are attached to EDM (Hawtin's tour in name, Cox's alternative tent at the Ultra festival). —mjb (talk) 12:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

First time?

There seems to be a conflict of content on two different articles. Either the 2008 Grammy Awards article is wrong, or this one is. It says there on that article that Daft Punk performed that year. Until it's verified, the tag should remain in place. Lighthead ^þ 01:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I googled it. Sure enough. Check it out... here. To whoever put it, if there's something that I'm missing please explain here or on my talk page. Thanks. Lighthead ^þ 03:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

according to the Grammy website the 2008 Grammy Awards article is wrong, but for a different reason, the 50th Grammy Awards are the 2007 awards, not 2008. At the 51st (2008) Daft Punk won two awards, the previous year they were performers. It seems the consensus is that Grammy articles should not follow the academy dating, per WP:COMMON NAME, can't say I agree. Semitransgenic _talk. 15:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Almost sounds like someone got confused between the Grammys and The American Music Awards... —mjb (talk) 15:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

see the discussion here and here it seems a bit daft to me that the official dating is being ignored, and it appears to be down to the opinion of a single editor. Semitransgenic _talk. 17:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Not touching that one :) I was just pointing out that regardless of EDM's inroads into the Grammys, this year's American Music Awards introduced an Electronic Dance Music category. —mjb (talk) 17:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see Mjb. I'll try to find the appropriate news item for that and place it into the article. I'm not sure if you were the one who made that edit; I haven't checked. Lighthead ^þ 23:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Done ☺ Lighthead ^þ 00:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

What does it mean, in this source, that EDM "featured at the grammys for the first time"? The Grammy Award for Best Dance/Electronica Album has existed since 2005 so this is clearly nonsense. - filelakeshoe 12:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

As you point out, there's been an electronica category since 2005, and as Semitransgenic points out, Daft Punk performed on the telecast in 2008. So no matter how we interpret the claim, it's wrong. I went ahead and removed it, and added info about the category being added in 2005. —mjb (talk) 19:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Relevance?

This might infuriate whoever recently added that blurb about Project X magazine in the mainstream appeal section, but the reason I added that inline message is because awards related to some minor magazine from the 90s has nothing to do with the mainstream appeal of EDM. Unless the person who made that edit can give me a really good explanation here then I might consider removing those inline template messages. Wikipedia is not a stream of consciousness endeavor. It might seem okay to show it as a progression, but it's not noteworthy per the name of the section. Lighthead ^þ 02:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind. I didn't understand the edit at first. I didn't look at it holistically. Revert my own edit. Lighthead ^þ 03:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

"EDM" as opposed to "electronic dance music"

These days "EDM" appears to be used to refer to a particular subgenre, e.g. that of Deadmau5 and other American dance producers (apparently - it's not a type of dance music I know much about or even pay attention to) which is generally referred to specifically as "EDM". It's confusing the issue with regards to the generic topic of electronic dance music. I suggest that we create an article called EDM (music) to address what "EDM" is, and restructure this article to talk about electronic dance music (small e, small d, small m, what the UK calls simply "dance music") as a whole.

At the very least, this article needs to be given a thorough working-over as it has a massively US-centric perspective on the topic. — Hex (❝?!❞) 11:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I can't agree that we should report EDM as denoting a subgenre. It's simply wrong, and even this HuffPost article knows it. That would be like saying we should create a section in the Techno article about Scooter and Basshunter because that's what most 14 year olds think their music is called. The reason the "EDM" spotlight focuses on deadmau5 and Skrillex is simply because their sounds (which until they both started doing Complextro were completely different) are the most popular in the US, and dance music really is only just becoming accepted fully in the US mainstream. - filelakeshoe 23:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

the acronym EDM originated in popular music studies, there is little doubt about what it means. In academia "electronic music" historically referred to post-war art music stemming from the European avant-garde. Dance music was a separate subject, which of course existed prior to the introduction of electronics. Academic writing that was focusing specifically on popular electronic music, and in particular music that grew out of the post-disco era (house,techno etc.), introduced the acronym EDM as a shorthand version of "electronic dance music" (not sure we can pin-point the exact origin of the phrase itself). The term EDM was eventually picked up by those in the non-academic domain and it became embedded in fan discourse. Any source that presents EDM as a specific genre/style whatever, has missed the historical context completely. It is perfectly acceptable, in the context of a musicological perspective, to call house,techno etc. electronic dance music. So, I'm not sure that we can simply alter the meaning of the term EDM because it has more recently been associated with a form of electronic dance music that certain sectors of the American music media believe is a new genre. The term existed long before the mass marketing began. That some individuals are now using the term EDM to label and differentiate a certain type of pop-electronic-dance-music (let's call it PEDM), and are doing so in an effort to distinguish it from what they consider "serious" electronic dance music, is misguided. "Electronic dance music" is simply any form of electronic music that is produced for the purposes of dance based entertainment, it is not, despite what those who have recently woken up to all of this might believe, a specific genre of music; it is a category that contains multiple individuated genres. Semitransgenic _talk. 14:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

EDM nonprofit trade organization formed

Another bit of info for future inclusion in the article: Association For Electronic Music Launches. —mjb (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

EDM denomination bugs me... why not electronic music ?

As an old techno amateur, the idea of having this genre labelled under some "dance" label bugs me. Dance seems to refer to popular derivation of genre, like a house/techno/trance/anything track being popular would end up in the "dance" category and be endlessly remixed, etc. This page should just be named "electronic music". There are so many tracks that fits the content of this page but arent meant to be "danced"... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.15.10.182 (talk) 14:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

WP has an article for electronic music. Radiodef (talk) 04:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The term EDM existed before American journalists started overusing it. It was coined by musicologists to separate electronic dance music from electronic classical music, and electronic dance music from other types of dancing music. - filelakeshoe (t / c) 13:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Article should be renamed as "Dance music"

EDM is a fake genre. Its just called Dance Music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burnin Gypsy Kneeger (talk • contribs) 05:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

"Electronica" is also a fake genre. "Dance Music" sounds too much like a specific form of electronic music (Eurodance, etc), or like some other really oldschool shit. EDM is perfect. Easy and quick to say, perfectly clear definition. Didn't we have this discussion already? 62.20.162.27 (talk) 23:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The main issue is that the term is nearly solely used in the US. It's an American umbrella term for a certain amount of genres that have, in other countries, always been referred to as Dance Music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.155.124.10 (talk) 15:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Addressing the large amount of original research

My focus today has been expansion of content and insertion of tags, but this article now needs inline references. There is a large amount of content that is not cited and it is a pressing issue, as the content appears to have been written by someone with a personal interest who did not use credible sources as the basis for their information.--Soulparadox (talk) 14:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Quote from Dave Clarke

I have reinstated the quote from Dave Clarke—sourced from Mixmag (April 2014)—as he is a notable figure in the electronica field; furthermore, a reason was not provided for its removal. I will also further enhance the last edit, as a few grammatical errors have been missed.--Soulparadox (talk) 05:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

It was removed before because it was cited to a primary source (his posting on Twitter). Articles must rely on reliable, secondary sources. ViperSnake151  Talk  05:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Citations guys!!

Hi,

I'm just browsing through this page and I can't help but notice the lack of citations and sources throughout the whole page. This is especially concerning in the section about live EDM. If you don't have an academic source, or reliable article/journal to cite, and you edit/create/add a section then you are either plagiarising or coming up with stuff from the top of your head. It doesn't matter if you're an EDM enthusiast or if you have lived through a certain era, your opinion doesn't matter. That's not what an encyclopaedia is for, you can cite other people's opinions which would be a great help and then cite somebody else's opinion to provide a critical analysis, as long as they're published authors. However anybody who puts something up because it's their opinion or their personal belief is offering nothing in terms of providing a reliable and informative wikipedia page. I'm not one to ever care about editing a wikipedia page unless if I'm testing the waters with vandalism, but I'm starting to have a change of heart. I use this website for the sources for help with academic essays etc..this page hasn't helped me at all.

Thanks guys/girls. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.28.174.72 (talk) 15:56, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree people shouldn't state things because it's their opinion. A certain user keeps adding a sentence to the opening section claiming EDM came into mainstream use in the late 2000s, and 'cites' an article that doesn't even support that claim. I keep reverting it, and they keep reverting it back, useless citation and all. The reason I keep removing it is because *my* experience tells me it was a popular term in the late 1990s to early 2000s. Further, I can easily find hundreds of sources preceding the mid-2000s that explicitly use the term EDM. It annoys me to no end that this user (who is certainly well-meaning and a prolific contributor to this great project) keeps reverting my deletion as if their citation makes their claim fact. I don't believe they've actually read the citation they keep associating with the false claim. Hmsimha (talk) 10:17, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

you are correct, i did not read it, and instead assumed your actions were disruptive, so considering that the cite does not serve our purposes, what are you talking about here, the term "electronic dance music" or the acronym EDM? if the latter, as far as I'm aware, it did not enter mainstream usage until the late 00s, if you have reliable sources that can demonstrate that the acronym EDM was a "popular term" in the "late 1990s to early 2000s", it would be helpful of you to provide links so that we can draw upon this information and improve the accuracy of the content. Based on my readings of published reliable sources that discuss "electonic dance music," the acronym EDM was little used outside of academic writings and it most certainly was not a "popular term" in the "late 1990s to early 2000s" but I'm certainly open to seeing evidence that proves otherwise. Semitransgenic _talk. 12:45, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Both the term "electronic dance music" and the acronym EDM were used in the early 2000s, the former a newer catch-all term to refer to all the emerging and established forms of electronic music, the latter because "electronic dance music" is just a lengthy phrase to say or type. There are certainly references to it from the early 2000s, but if you discount academic writings, you'll be hard pressed to find them because many of the original sources are either down, or weren't crawled by the wayback machine that early and don't necessarily have their original publication date.

One of the first references I'm able to find on the web is this one (https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/UM-EDMC/info) referring to the EDM community as early as 2000.: http://web.archive.org/web/20031118174814/http://www.jahsonic.com/EDM.html One of the earliest resources on electronic dance music, which you have no doubt seen, was Ishkur's guide to electronic music. Note that the original flash application didn't refer to as electronic dance music, but when it was updated and moved to di.fm it was referred to as the EDM guide http://web.archive.org/web/20030915000000*/http://www.di.fm/edmguide/edmguide.html as early as 2003. Here's another group referring to EDM in 2003: http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/index.php/archives/2003/09/ Here's a 2003 article on the history of Electronic Dance Music: http://www.djforums.com/forums/content.php?129-The-History-of-Electronic-Dance-Music And an interview from 2003 referring to EDM and the EDM community: http://web.archive.org/web/20030727072414/http://www.lunarmagazine.com/features/rdevine.php And an overview of various forms of EDM with a focus on trance from 2004: http://web.archive.org/web/20041011175612/http://www.generationtrance.com/bio.php You can find numerous other references to EDM in articles and reviews dating to 2005 and 2006. Perhaps it's fair to say that the acronym EDM was often prefaced with the expanded form before 2006, as before then it was being used primarily by people who knew that there were different styles of electronic music as a blanket genre that encompassed all of them. Hmsimha (talk) 22:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, but none of this is WP:RS material that supports the "popular term" in the "late 1990s to early 2000s" assertion that you made above. Also:

• The Yahoo group founded in 2000 called itself the "Electronic Dance Music Club" not the "EDM club," and any usage of the acronym there might be on the boards there, by a very small group of individuals, does not constitute "popular usage."
• the "history of Electronic Dance Music" blog post does not actually use the acronym anywhere.
• the other examples are individual isolated instances of usage of the acronym and, as you point out above, it's generally preceded by the full term.

Unfortunately, we simply cannot utilise this material in a constructive manner without engaging in WP:OR, we need a reliable secondary source that builds the case, then we cite that. But, back to the original point, it is simply wrong to state that EDM was a popular term in the late 90s and early 2000s. And, your initial issue was with the "mainstream usage" aspect; by this I take it we mean usage within mainstream popular culture, which is rather different than fan discourse usage of the EDM acronym prior to widespread adoption by mainstream media (and, there's also a regional aspect, "EDM" is, put simply, an Americanism). Semitransgenic _talk. 11:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

EDM is an acronym for electronic dance music. If your argument is that the acronym EDM is a different thing from Electronic Dance Music, maybe 'EDM' should be in it's own article, and not part of the 'Electronic Dance Music' article. As numerous examples I linked to have shown, EDM as an acronym was also in use well before 2010, and even 2005. Your argument that it took on a new meaning (the acronym specifically, not the term Electronic Dance Music) in 2010 is fine, except stating that 'the music industry' 'adopted' it is misleading. It suggests that the term wasn't previously used by 'the music industry' (it was). The use of 'EDM' to refer specifically to club-oriented popular electronic music specifically by large event organizers and popular press within the music industry has merit, but it certainly was in use before then. The word 'repurposed' here makes that more readily evident. Hmsimha (talk) 00:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

you are confused, nowhere, in anything I have offered above do I "argue" that EDM "took on a new meaning (the acronym specifically, not the term Electronic Dance Music)." I'm not going to get into a ridiculous discussion about this, it's very clear what I have stated both here (and in edit comments). Also, your comprehension of the transitive verb "adopt" appears muddy, in the context used in the article it simply means "to take up and make one's own," I fail to see how this is problematic. Let's stick to sources, WP:RS sources, to build content. If you disagree with a source, take it to the relevant notice board. Semitransgenic _talk. 09:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Post-disco citation deletions

this edit inexplicably removed WP:RS cites. Please see the following sources if you wish to improve the content, there's plenty to draw upon.

The AMG quote clearly states:"each successive movement", which means: the various dance-music related movements that arose during the post-disco era.

Post disco in itself was not a movement, so suggesting that it is something that can be characterized is misleading.

Nowhere does the AMG article suggest this.Many divergent styles are covered by the catch-all 'post disco'. Electronic and digital technology influenced all areas of music in the early to mid 1980s, right across the board, from pop to rock, synthesizers and digital reverb were virtually ubiquitous.

The rise of the 12" as the standard format for dance mixes in the early 1980s needs to be highlighted, this development was about the only thing the mainstream music industry held over from the disco era - once it's commercial interest in disco music waned.

Coverage of the underground dance music scenes that emerged after the commercial decline of disco should be provided.

Also, the emergence of the term "dance-music" should be touched on.

A numer of academics deal with all of this, Kai Fikentscher's work is worth a look.

By way of teasing out how different sources use the term "post-disco", and what they are referring to when they use it, a selection of instances are provided below:

• Kate McGowan, The Year's Work in Critical and Cultural Theory Volume 7: 1997, Wiley-Blackwell, 2000. (Chapter 3. Dance Culture)

"Several authors, such as Steve Redhead in Subculture to Clubcultures, Maria Pini in Back to Reality?, Jonathan Keane in Soundings as well as Fred Cole and Michael Hannan in Perfect Beat, have addressed specific features of what during the last ten years has become known in Britain as 'dance culture'. This term includes rave culture and club culture, whereby raves are large nightly gatherings of people that dance to amplified repetitive electronically produced dance music - to stay in the rhythm of some of the above authors, perhaps a (post-) useful term for this music could be 'post-disco'(?)". (p128)

• Kai Fikentscher, "You better work!": underground dance music in New York City, Wesleyan University Press, 2000.

"I want to emphasise the cultural thread that links earlier forms and worlds of social dance in the United States to the disco and post-disco eras. (p21)

"There is a structural affinity between rock, disco, and post-disco dance styles, spanning a thirty-five year period since the arrival of the Twist as a symptom of "a changing scene in social dance". (p25)

• Graham St. John ed., Rave culture and religion, Routledge, 2004.

"The above descriptions could suit a range of post-disco and post-rave dance events, in a variety of geographical locations". (p 46)

"As a post-disco party music, house features a repetitive 4/4 beat and a speed of 120 or more beats per minute, and is mostly produced with electronic instruments".(p 50)

• George E.Haggerty, Gay histories and cultures: an encyclopedia, Taylor & Francis, 2000.

"..house music, a form of post-disco dance music made popular in the mid-1980s in Chicago clubs..." (p 256)

• Trevor Schoonmaker, Fela: from West Africa to West Broadway Palgrave Macmillan, 2003.

"...Puffy's consistent pilfering of the pop coffers from a certain time period shows undoubtedly that he is influenced by the post-disco R&B bounce of the late 1970s and early 1980s..." (p 26)

"Fela's music of the 1970s is the primordial mass for the whole lot of it - disco, post-disco R&B, hip-hop (as a reaction), house, techno and all modern-day genetic manipulations of each." (p 32)

• Martin James, French connections: from discothèque to discovery, Sanctuary, 2003.

"The post-disco sounds of new romantic artists such as Spandau Ballet and Visage quickly usurped the originators, while the increased wealth of the so-called yuppie generation broke down the elitism of the 1970s." (p)35

• Stuart Borthwick & Ron Moy, Popular music genres: an introduction, Edinburgh University Press, 2004.

"However, unlike disco, P-Funk always sounded 'played', with little of the production-line precision of disco and post-disco dance forms". (p 34)

• George McKay, Senseless acts of beauty: cultures of resistance since the sixties, Verso, 1996.

"The main sources of rave disperse and collide swiftly, sometimes surprisingly: post-disco dance music from the USA, the Mediterranean Island of Ibiza, the north-western post-industrial city of Manchester, a general sixties and early seventies quatted warehouse parties that mushroomed in Britain in the mid-to late eighties." (p104)

• Charles R. Acland, Residual media, University of Minnesota Press, 2007.

"The legacy of musical adventures with Latin Dance music can still be heard in, for example, the dominance of salsa clave rhythms in the riffs of (post-disco) house music". (p107)

• Alan McKee, Beautiful things in popular culture,Wiley-Blackwell, 2007.

"It was, one could say, a routine record of its time, following the standard disco and post-disco dance floor formula of female soul vocals plus drum machines and synthesizers". (p199)

"The last hit Belolo and Morali production was a group that was to define the next major musical development in the post-disco era". (p36)

• Tara Brabazon,From revolution to revelation: generation X, popular memory, and cultural studies, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2005.

"'Blue Monday' [New Order] is probably the most famous post-disco extended remix". (p 91)

"Dance music is proud of its past.The opening track of madisonavenues's album, Polyester Embassy, offers a rapped history and aural pilgrimage to the vinyl histories of the beat...Such a popular history, which discursively frames the dance experience on the album, has been characteristic of the best post-disco". (pp 98-99)

• Bruce Haring, Chuck D, Beyond the charts: MP3 and the digital music revolution, JM Northern Media LLC, 2000.

"By 1979, the great record industry post-disco slump had hit the business. Arist accountants approached Grusin and Rosen". (p54)

• Helen Thomas, Dance in the city, Palgrave Macmillan, 1997.

"But what of breaking? It faded right out of hip-hop partly because of a steady long-term decline in the importance of dance post-disco..." (p24)

• McQuillan, Martin(Editor). Narrative Reader. Florence, KY, USA: Routledge, 2000.

"they share a cyclic mode of parsing out time – a mode informed variously by non-Western musics such as Indian ragas or Balinese gamalan, by the blues procedures that have dominated the mainstream of Western musical practice for nearly a hundred years, by postdisco dance styles, and (or so Fredric Jameson and Jean Baudrillard would contend in their critiques of postmodern culture) by habits instilled in us by late capitalism". (p168)

• Starr, Larry. American Popular Music : The Rock Years. Cary, NC, USA: Oxford University Press, Incorporated, 2005.

"By the early 1980s most hit singles— particularly those promoted on MTV— were oriented more toward postdisco dance music played on keyboard synthesizers than toward the electric guitar virtuosity of heavy metal bands". (p242)

• Crazy Horse, Kandia(Editor). Rip it Up : The Black Experience in Rock.Gordonsville, VA, USA: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004.

"The 1980s truly began in 1982: Madonna released her first single. Michael Jackson let loose Thriller. Culture Club’s “Do You Really Wanna Hurt Me” and the Human League’s “Don’t You Want Me” were heard on New York black radio months before they went pop, back to back with paradigm-shaking future rap classics like Grandmaster Flash & the Furious Five’s “The Message” and Afrika Bambaataa & the Soul Sonic Force’s “Planet Rock.” A new R&B sound and presentation, first heard on Evelyn “Champagne” King’s 1981 post-disco comeback “I’m in Love,” had begun." (p116)

• Michael Campbell Popular Music in America: And the Beat Goes on, Cengage Learning, 2008.

"However, in Christgau's Record Guide, a 1990 survey of 3,000 recordings from the eighties, Robert Christgau, the "dean of American rock critics," cited "post-punk/post-disco fusion" as a key development of the decade. He described a synthesis of the two in DOR, or dance oriented rock, an umbrella term used by DJs in 1980s disco pools to identify an array of eighties styles."

Semitransgenic _talk. 09:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Terminology

It might be sensible to sub-section this (Terminology) off into US/UK/Europe like much of the rest of the article has been. Currently the "World View" on it is absolutely appalling and this is down to the significant differences between the way terminology has developed between countries. Doing this would avoid the monumentally stupid edits that have been going on as one country disputes what the other country cites. Having them all together in one small paragraph they end up fighting for space and their place in music terminology timeline, much like trying to write an article on two different wars being fought on simultaneously on two sides of the world with each country wanting pride of place at the forefront of the piece. By doing this you would avoid the arguments and at the same time have a wiki-article that actually is comprehensive and inclusive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.149.103 (talk) 12:13, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

World View

I've added Template:Worldview as this article seems to talk excessively about the US scene. The article correctly references the European origins of the genre, but why is there a huge section "Mainstream appeal in the United States" when the genre has mainstream appeal almost worldwide? This section in particular, and the entire article in general, need to present a world view of the scene as it is today. EDM didn't just get imported to the US from Europe, get commercialised solely in the US and then stop happening in Europe, nor did it fail to arrive in other parts of the world. Andrew Oakley (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. Considering there's a huge electronic dance music scene in countries like Germany, France and the UK, and these countries are arguably more instrumental in influencing the various genres, it seems very limited to focus on EDM in the US almost exclusively. However, it takes people from around the world to contribute, and because the English language version of Wikipedia is predominantly used by people with English as a first language, there are far more Americans here than any other nationality, leading to bias. So I suppose we should request anyone who can contribute information about EDM outside the US to chip in! 77.99.12.140 (talk) 17:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey everyone, the flag for the world view has been up for some time now. we should try to work together to take it down, along with the flag saying there is a lack of citations. i'll start going through the article now to make some fixes, i would appreciate the assistance. GoGatorMeds (talk) 21:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Original Research Removal

A request for citations (placed two years ago) has gone largely unheeded, therefore all offending original research has been purged. Please do not add new content to the article without appropriate sources. If editors have trouble understanding what this entails please read WP:VER & WP:OR. There are s**t-loads of usable sources out there so please don't be lazy. Semitransgenic _talk. 08:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Request for comments

There is currently a proposal for the inclusion of an EDM distributor (Beatport), under the notability guidelines for Wikipedia music articles, which can be found here. --prokaryotes (talk) 03:08, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Topic focus.

Concerning the continued addition of tangential content by IP users 166.137.8.113, 166.137.8.79, 166.137.8.78, and 104.33.147.32, this is an article about electronic dance music, not US radio programming politics. The article is already severely weighted toward a US perspective, and in particular the US EDM industry, we need to address WP:CSB instead of adding increasingly granular content, please try and develop the article in other ways, general readers are here to read about dance music, not irrelevant, or even loosely relevant, content. Semitransgenic _talk. 14:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree with the above, and the second paragraph on Clear Channel just looks like speculation to me - "has made efforts", "announcing a partnership", "felt that the upcoming show would provide...", this stuff doesn't belong in the main genre article unless it demonstrably has been influential, and yes, preferably on a worldwide scale if we're going to have long sections about it. If the edit warring continues I'll be reporting the dispute to uninvolved admins. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  22:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

There is to much mention of Clear Channel media stuff - five times, seriously? They currently play on iHeartRadio, and on some local radio frequencies (territory locked) EDM music, but that's about it i think.--prokaryotes (talk) 22:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Thus, reverted, the name shouldn't be mentioned more than two times. --prokaryotes (talk) 22:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

False premises

As I type this (recognizing that the Article can change after I type this), the article includes many widespread false premises. This is because - unlike for example, World War II - the subject matter concerns the present day.

The major false premise is the term "EDM".

It simply stands for "Electronic Dance Music", and has been used that way for many years (references can be found in Trance Addict Forum from over 10 years ago, or similarly old video interviews with DJ Paul Van Dyk on Youtube.)

Recently (as described in the article), in a trend starting around 2009, dance music became noticed by the music industry. So, they used the EXISTING term, "EDM" as a CORRECT way of distinguishing it from Rock, Jazz, Folk, Country and Hip-Hop.

But the only music VISIBLE to the music industry is POP music, so they APPEARED to use the term when referring to "pop dance music" (e.g. Big Room and Festival Electro House).

To those who had always followed dance music, such as many people in Europe, the mistaken impression was that "EDM" was being used to refer to Pop Electro House, whereas the US music industry simply did not know anything else existed, and so they WERE referring to "all electronic dance music".

The use of words in specific ways is very "viral", especially in the current social media era, so the mistaken impression that "EDM" meant ONLY Pop Electro House spread quickly - despite minority protestations to the contrary.

"And now you know the rest of the story".

76.209.223.103 (talk) 01:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I think this is a fair point, but I am unsure of where to start with a revision. Any suggestions are most welcome. Thanks.--Soulparadox (talk) 03:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the article already takes this POV. If you read the (imo, far too long) section "North American commercialization of EDM" it starts off by talking about EDM in the 90s. This article is supposed to cover all electronic dance music, the fact that it is too recentist and america-centric is the problem. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  07:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, how about dubstep? That's also been pretty visible to the US music industry recently and they've managed to call it by the name of a subgenre. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  07:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

"Also, how about dubstep? That's also been pretty visible to the US music industry recently and they've managed to call it by the name of a subgenre."

EDM became the umbrella term for all "festival" modern electronic music (read: energetic, loud, jump-able, if you will). Dubstep came to the spotlight pretty soon after the influx of electronic music to North America had started (which happened at the dusk of electro house, as you correctly stated) - of course, people started calling individual genres within "EDM" by name. When people talk about "EDM", they mean the whole range of genres, from electro house through bigroom to dubstep and trap (and the new wave of deep/future house now). 188.243.193.253 (talk) 17:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Confusion as to what "EDM" really is/means

I think it's worth noting that most of the "genres" that fall under the "EDM" buzzword (which is really more of a movement itself) have existed long before the term "EDM" was popularized.

What bothers me about the whole scene is that its participants have taken terms like "house", "drum n' bass", and others and tried to assign a value to them that isn't appropriate. For example, a lot of "drum n' bass" music under the EDM umbrella really just uses many aspects of a dubstep track but at a different tempo. A lot of "House" music is really just big room/festival stuff that doesn't necessarily follow what house music has been for the past 20+ years.

Long story short, the EDM movement is taking bass-heavy songs and giving them labels of genres that are much more diverse than the bass-heavy songs being labelled, when the only difference between said songs is often just tempo. The whole thing just seems less musical than they're playing it up to be. Excitium (talk) 21:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, most of the genres existed long before the umbrella term EDM was created. I don't see it as a problem because the genres that it encompasses are, on the whole, danceable. Of course, not all electronic music is danceable (Aphex Twin being an example - experimental but no dance vibe), but tracks in genres like dnb, house, etc, are generally danceable, and these are the genres that EDM includes. I wouldn't call EDM a movement; it's simply a convenient umbrella term that neatly encompasses all danceable electronic music. --5.71.102.105 (talk) 20:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)