Talk:Footwork (genre)

Merge with Footwork / Juke House (music)

The Information here is much better than that in the Ghetto house page

could be worth melding the two or making a new page that seperates Ghetto House and Footwork / Juke — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayabsley (talk • contribs) 00:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Attempts at consolidation

As per discussion on User talk:DJ Alla Dean#Incorrect merge we, with User:Solidest came to conclusion that juke house and footwork/juke (footwork AKA juke) should be kept separate, as of now. For those who haven't yet glanced over the discussion, the issue is that some sources claim footwork and juke are the two names for the same genre, while others make distinction. The consensus was not touching the section in ghetto house ("juke house" section") and do all editing in the footwork article. I ask patrollers and everyone involved to be careful editing the article as I also am going to edit it for some time starting now. -- DJ Alla Dean (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Japanese footwork

I for now think that Japanese footwork warrants its own article. If noone is opposed to the idea of moving it to its own article while retaining the gist of it in "Japan" section I am going to do so after some short time. DJ Alla Dean (talk) 04:02, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

However, after some thinking I am myself firmly opposed to that, on grounds that footwork/juke is, despite significant press coverage, still an extremely niche genre and moving a part of article elsewhere practically guarantees that after some time it is going to become well-abandoned. Here, on the contrary, the "Japan" section serves to draw part of larger picture and therefore is very relevant in its entirety. Maybe it can be reorganized and some sections may get moved elsewhere in the article, for instance footwork dancing in Japan may get moved to footwork dancing section, social impact may be given top-section priority (since Atomic Bomb Compilation no longer includes only Japanese producers, but producers from elsewhere too, it is not bound to Japan alone). DJ Alla Dean (talk) 04:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Invalid conflation of footwork and juke

DJ Alla Dean, who completely rewrote the article in 2022, has an incorrect view on the genre, believing that footwork and juke are the same thing, based on the fact that some sources describe the two terms at the same time (allmusic in particular). Although in fact you can find a ton of sources that describe them as two different genres with different characteristics that have different dates of origin and that refer to different music releases. Footwork is described by sources as bass music, mostly without a drumline, and juke is actually a sped up variation of ghetto house that belongs to house genres branch. This is something that can be verified by many sources that describe each of the two genres independently from each other. For more details, see the discussion on the editors' talk page: User talk:DJ Alla Dean#Incorrect moving. On my part, I would just roll back the entire article before these edits, as it is effectively WP:OR in my opinion. But I guess it would be more correct to double-check each source and rewrite the whole article sequentially. Solidest (talk) 15:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

DJ Alla Dean here. In 2022 we have discussed the subject matter and came to conclusion (here and here) that since some sources use "juke" as a synonym for footwork (we just can't turn a blind eye on that) and some distinguish juke and footwork, we'll keep it like this:

1. Footwork article (this one) should mention that it is also sometimes called "juke" (per sources, we just can't ignore the sources to make things "clearer"). This article currently does just that. It mentions the "juke" synonym in the lede, and it explains the presence of synonym in "Etymology" section

2. Juke may also mean either a flavour or subgenre or some kind of subtype of ghetto house. That mention belongs to ghetto house article (here it is: Ghetto house#Chicago juke)

3. There is a Juke disambiguation page which gives links to both footwork article and ghetto house articles. Here is this disambiguation: Juke music.

That's how it is right now. I think it is the cleanest solution to a disambiguation in this case. Maybe something has changed since 2022 that you decided to revamp your opinion and bring this discussion back again?

If you wanna make a third article, called Juke, talking about that particular flavour of ghetto house that morphed into "proper" Footwork - be bold and do it, if you have enough sources for that. I am not against this, as we already have analogous situation with Oldschool jungle vs Drum'n'bass, and the oldschool jungle exists, so why wouldn't "proper" Juke page exist?

Reverting the article to 2021 will remove the whole regional scenes section (a big one), will remove the Etymology section. I dont really think this would be constructive, because that text is well-referenced.

@Binksternet:, please have a look at this sutiation. I know you look after genre pages, as does Solidest, and you are also a power user and a house head (if I recall correctly), and I remember you were correcting some bits here and there in this article when I was adding to it back in 2022 (it was your idea to cleanup the Stylistic origins to only "ghetto house"), so you would know better. Maybe @Mjb: could also provide his opinion, because he was an oldschool Wikipedian and a house head, and I remember that he had a lot of sources about House music or Techno or whatever up his sleeve. Maybe some other knowledgeable users could weigh in.

Too bad I have lost the password to DJ Alla Dean account so can't speak from that handle. I am also somewhat busy elsewhere right now and saw this verifiability tag (and this new discussion) by pure accident. 92.38.76.58 (talk) 18:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

It's one thing when you mention the overlap of terms in the introduction, as for example it is indicated in Shoegaze or Chamber pop articles. And another when you fill the whole article about footwork with information about a parallel genre without going into the context, mixing everything into one pile and without doing any detailed analysis of sources, or at least saving citations in many cases. You, given that the article is called footwork, use word juke 80 times in it or 20 times "footwork/juke". I've looked over most sources cited after using the phrase “footwork/juke” and it's used almost nowhere. And in some cases, the sources explicitly describe a variation of house and footwork isn't mentioned at all, but you also write that down as “footwork/juke”. The characteristics section literally describes juke house and the source says so, while footwork the source describes as a separate offshoot with a changed sound. But again you write it off as one thing and "footwork/juke". I see this approach throughout the article, where the sources say one thing, but in the quotes you fit your interpretation, and that's why you have not only juke as two different genres, but "Chicago juke" too.

And it's good that you mentioned the dnb vs jungle thing. Since such a characterization of the genre is not like saying that in the early days the terms sometimes crossed over and overlapped, but to lump the whole history of jungle into drum and bass and write them down as “Drum and bass/jungle”. I think that would have been immediately rejected on day one, but footwork is more niche and just not many people care about it.

I disagree with your reworking of the article since 2022, but I just don't have the motivation to clean it all up and rewrite it, but I think it's important to at least set up a warning that a lot of what is described in the article is simply an incorrect interpretation of the sources. So there needs to be extensive work and rewriting to comply with WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE and WP:OR. Solidest (talk) 19:28, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I think I could only get that far with the sources without committing to detailed analysis and at the same time not violating the "no OR" rule.

What I clearly agree with is that "footwork/juke" is unnecessary. Mentions of footwork should stick to the main term, basically "footwork" itself. The only mentions of juke should be in the lede and in the etymology section. Elsewhere it should be only footwork. If some source uses the term "juke" and it is clear that they are separating the too in the source (that's the simple criterion for defining whether they are frivolous with their term usage or sticking to clear separation of terms), it shouldn't belong in this article, but should be moved to "Chicago juke" section of "Ghetto house".

As far as I can remember, some of the sources used "juke and footwork" wording too. 178.121.24.216 (talk) 20:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

The crucial thing that needs to be well-set and agreed upon is the time when Footwork emerged. Because the lede says it emerged during the late 1990s while some sources I remember claim that it only distinctly separated from "proper juke" at some point in the 2000s. 178.121.24.216 (talk) 20:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@Binksternet:, @Solidest:, @Mjb: okay I started reworking the article a bit and yes I see a lot of issues, working on them 178.121.24.216 (talk) 20:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, these improvements were indeed helpful in terms of understanding the genres, but they are still additions in the form of unsourced original research and the article still needs work. For example now in the Etymology section, juke is described as something shapeless that defines a lot of styles that came out of ghetto house, described simply as a blanket term, mostly used interchangeably with footwork. But I look at the sources after these phrases and see clear characteristics of juke, including stylistic differences from footwork [1] [2] [3], and somewhere even a chronological difference in their appearance. Some sources also say that footwork evolved from juke, simply abandoning the house beat and turning to abstract bass, and I think it's important to write about that too. And the fact that other sources dispute that, writing that both genres developed in parallel from ghetto house is also worth keeping. But juke is definitely not a shapeless alias as it is now described in the Etymology section - enough sources draw a line between the two genres. And the wording "juke and footwork" is used in the sources in the context of the scene (meaning that the producers addressed the two genres simultaneously in their work because of the similar sound and shared roots), not something that is a fused genre. Even though in one place in the article it is written correctly about the scene, but in other parts of the article it still remains that it is some sort of obscure amalgamed style, which is not correct from the sources. Also, the text from Characteristics about the tradition of distinguishing proper juke and proper footwork, although being correct, is also an original research, which was not really needed - as all the differences are already in the sources and it is just worth to double-check them and write it out. Solidest (talk) 15:20, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

This is not so much being an OR, this is rather I quickly added that text about distinction to the Characteristic section to underline the said distinction, I have previously read all that in the texts listed in the sources already. Tomorrow I will continue editing it, adding references and going through that references in Etymology again (because the japan times ref is now paywalled and I didn't have luck unpaywalling it so I don't know what it is talking about). Uh, and I will remove infoboxes from European footowrk and Latin footwork, cause I don't think they are needed there. And uh, I would remove that gqom section, because it reads like lunacy, but I need to check what the sources (someone who added this gqom text also added a lot of sources to back their claims) really say. 178.121.1.9 (talk) 01:48, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Talking about 'juke and footwork' scene, that's exactly what I intended to write, maybe that sentence isn't clear and I need to make it simpler. But this claim is straight from the source, which alternatively uses "juke and footwork", describing a "movement" (or scene), but then also uses "juke or footwork" elsewhere. Without guessing too much I would say that the hired author wasn't bothered too much with distinction, he simply knew proper juke and proper footwork are different and that is all that mattered to him. 178.121.1.9 (talk) 01:54, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I just went through sources in the gqom section, and they indeed describe gqom, but none of them makes any connection of gqom to footwork. Two gqom sources that mention footwork exactly 1 time each claim that (a) "gqom evolved from deep house just as footwork evolved from ghetto house" (that would be a good source for ghetto house and footwork connection), and (b) the other one is an album review which says Jesse Lanza mixed gqom, Brazilian funk and footwork in her album. Good for her! but that doesn't really establish any connection between the two (lots of multigenre albums out there, especially in these "eclectic" times). 178.121.1.9 (talk) 02:04, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Japan Subgenres - Party Juke, Vocaloid Juke?

Do "Vocaloid Juke" and "Party Juke" really warrant their own sub-genre status? These seem more like styles of tracks and not an entire sub-genre. Both styles had been done in Chicago prior to being done in Japan. Maybe they had a big cultural impact in Japan, but you could argue that "vocaloid" and "party juke" (rapping over tracks?) had a similarly measurable impact on Chicago's scene as well. Additionally, there is a very limited number of releases for these "subgenres" and it doesn't seem like there was a significant lasting impact for these movements. 107.138.59.240 (talk) 01:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)