Talk:Neurofunk

test

Test

Piss-poor article

Is this article about Neurofunk or about mentioning as many producers as one can? There are whole paragraphs about certain people that make the article completely confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.198.172.102 (talk) 14:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Archived talk

• Talk:Neurofunk/Archive 1

subtle removal of criticism from this talk page

I checked back to see if anybody had agreed with a criticism I made of this article, and checking the revision history of this page demonstrates that user:Kridian has been attempting to remove critical paragraphs from this talk page. Is there any reason to do taht other than to discourage people from working on it?

What is the point on trying to work on this article?

87.244.104.15 (talk) 15:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

criticism of article - this subject heading being removed by users

Let me start by apologising for the fact that I am probably unwilling to do any work on this article - I have reviewed the editing history, including the history of arbitration, and it is obvious that user:Kridian is unwilling to allow anybody to challenge his extremely biased opinion on the subject, let alone his 'original interpretation' of grammar, citation and musical theory.

Kridian aka. Robert Soares is well known to the drum and bass community online as a crank, and indeed spends plenty of time crowing about his 'ownership' of this article. The fact that he has been able to continue editing this article, despite repeatedly claiming that any attempts to edit it will be reverted, and that he will continue doing so if banned, speaks very badly for the way wikipedia now functions. Many people, few of whom agree with each other or even get on all that well, have considered editing this article, but it is not even possible to keep track of it when Kridian hides your work in a flurry of minor edits. Consequently, this article is almost entirely unreadable.

In any case, I would like to add this comment on behalf of the drum and bass fans, producers and journalists who are well aware of how lacking this article is. There is little incentive for those with insider and/or specialist knowledge to contribute to Wikipedia when our efforts will be reverted or re-edited by people such as the author of this article.

98.26.113.150 (talk) 22:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I second the above wholeheartedly, the above is a very accurate description of things. Here is one link illustrating how members of the drum'n'bass community typically view this article:

• "bad musicology and unreadable speculation",
• "it is a silly article, and it even makes me a little embarrassed though a self professed Neurofunk devotee",
• "personally i would completely re-write that entire article so it A: Doesn't read like a dope smoking german teenagers school essay; B: Has the ring of factual truth about it."
• "terrible article!"

The fact that someone has rated this B-class is an embarrassment for Wikipedia, and put alongside gems such as Wikipedia admins declaring Konflict non-notable, further proves they do not know remotely enough about drum'n'bass related topics to make meaningful judgements on it. Please, do not pass official judgement on the quality and accuracy of things you know absolutely nothing about, because when you endorse the largely incoherent ramblings of one eccentric obsessive as good-standard encyclopaedic material, you only make yourself look stupid." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.108.167.227 (talk) 12:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I googled neurofunk, and this article is the main hit, with the thread of the forum dogsonacid underneath it. I agree that this is terrible - as a musicologist this article makes no sense, and it is hard to believe that Wikipedia editors have been so encouraging to whoever wrote it. It reads like the article on evolutionary biology would if it were edited by a member of the flat earth society.

it would be nice to consider fixing it, but I have read the talk page and there seems no point. 82.112.138.77 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

ATT special contributions: im the one who wrote the whole of the article. it was appreciated in all forums except at doa, a forum which is famous for its brutality, cursing, racism and fights. i dont regret one word here since i know this style from top to bottom. another thing is that abosolutely no neurofunk artist on doa or elsewhere claimed that the article was bad since they didnt post there once in relation to the article. what got a lot of ppl pissed off was the fact that i didnt allow some doa knuckleheads to write here and turn it into a mess. for your knowledge, im not well known in the dnb community as a crank but as the one along with bassist producer bill laswell to fuse dnb producers and u.s. jazz musicans for 3 album projects. if anyone doesnt like what i got down here, change it for the best but not for the worst. so far, ppl talk loud but at the end they vanish into the haze and do nothing. i just finished re-editing a paragraph at this moment, leaving my contribution behind and complete. and for the critics, i say this: if you cant do better than this, then leave it alone!! but if you can, i welcome you as the one with better knowledge and literature since the only ones to benefit from neurofunk written literature will be readers and not me since all i need are my neurofunk & techstep vinyls on my shelve.

Kridian

The above comment is completely untrue. The author of this article reverts ANY change designed to clean up the unreadable language or remove the masses of original research from what he sees as his personal article and property. This article should probably be deleted, as a pile of original research on a tiny sub-genre is worth than useless.

Kridian claims that any disagreements come from his feud with the people at dogsonacid - the article is about a minor subgenre of music which is only of interest to DJs and producers - so it is hardly surprising that the majority of people who don't like the article come from the last remaining large, active internet site where this music is enjoyed. You only need to look at the editing history to see that kridian won't let anybody clean this article up, or if you use any of the internet forums where he posts updates to 'his article' you can easily see that he isn't interested in anybody else's opinion.

As for the idea that not a single artist has complained about the article - you might as well say that few of them are even aware of it, and wouldn't complain as long as it has heir names up there.

87.244.72.94 (talk) 14:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what to add other than this is an utterly *terrible* article and can't hide from being badly written, and that's before you look at the 'facts' it contains. Haute Pie (talk) 15:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys

Having discussed things with Bakemono, I think it would be best if both the Techstep an Neurofunk articles had a simple definition, with links to producers and record labels typical of the genres (which will overlap considerably no doubt). We should add something to each article mentioning that the overlap between what people refer to as techstep and neurofunk is so great that in many cases they are indistinguishable from one another.

I think the Neurofunk entry needs to be a smaller definition, like the techstep one, rather than the essay which it is at the moment. Please don't take offence Kridian, as you clearly know your stuff, but I quite like techy/funky DnB and I havent heard of half the artists your talking about.

A simple encyclopaedic entry would be best, perhaps linking to the article on Funk as a definition, and the techsteparticle for comparison. Likewise in techstep we should link other musical styles like Techno and link Neurofunk for comparison.

Hope that all makes sense! Tom Michael - Mostly Zen (talk) 11:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm Still Here, Kridian

...I was simply dealing with more important stuff for a bit. However, I'm not going to immediately modify the article or redirect anything as a show of good faith -- because I'm still willing to go about this in a NPOV way with you as long as you're willing to do the same and stop making the article your own. I have a lot to add to it and a lot to change. And again, it should be a sub-section of the Techstep article until actual fact-based proof of a specific definition that defines the style can be found. Until then, it's up in the air and completely arbitrary. Get back to me ASAP.

Bakemono 13:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Defining the difference

Neurofunk has developed out of Techstep type DnB and can only really be distinguished because it has a 'funky' feel to it. I had a look at the article Funk to see if someone could describe what makes something musically funky in terms of proper musical desription:

The funk article currently says:

Funk is a distinct style of music originated by African Americans, e.g., James Brown and his band members (especially Maceo and Melvin Parker), and groups like Parliament-Funkadelic or The Meters. Funk best can be recognized by its syncopated rhythms; thick bass line (often based on an "on the one" beat); razor-sharp rhythm guitars; chanted or hollered vocals (as that of Marva Whitney or the Bar-Kays); strong, rhythm-oriented horn sections; prominent percussion; an upbeat attitude; African tones; danceability; and strong jazz influences (e.g., as in the music of Miles Davis, Herbie Hancock, George Duke, Eddie Harris and others).

The thick basslines and syncopated rhythms could describe DnB in general. I think the difference is the funky feel and danceability (a lot of P-Funk was about dancing and not being 'too cool' to dance). I quite like a lot of techstep, but some of it is too rapid and broken up to dance too, it lacks the funky feel.

Rather than arguing over specific examples of artists who typify one genre or another, or starting to get angry or insulting with each other consider this. Most artists who produce neurofunk type music also produce some techstep as well, and vice versa. For example, I really like most tunes by Teebee which I would describe as Neurofunk with an ambient feel (lots of long drawn out atmospheric sounds along side the bass and beats). But some of Teebees tracks are pure techstep.

The other thing is that with so many artists and releases on Vinyl, how many of us have actually heard enough of their music to consider ourselves an expert. If we talk about Noisia, Phace et al, how manyof us have heard ALL of their music?? most of their music is techy and some of it is funky - some of it is both.

Enough people on internet forums (e.g. Dogs on Acid) use the term Neurofunk for it to deserve its own article though.

Tom Michael - Mostly Zen (talk) 18:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

PS: Drum and Bass has always been a small underground musical style, and has evolved as a mixture of different styles. As a result, you will always have considerable overlap between different genres. This is to be expected, but doesnt mean the different styles don't exist. We have white people and black people, and many many people who are somewhere in between.

Well, I'm back... sorry for my tardiness, but university and studies take priority over online bickering on Wikipedia. In any event, since I definitely agree with some of your points, I'll address you first as opposed to Kridian who I can see has been hard at work continuing to make the article his own in my absence. (Something that will soon change, as I've been rewriting the entirety of the article every weekend for the past month from a Wikipedia-accepted NPOV standpoint, which will subsequently be incorporated under a subcategory of the Techstep article.)

As you correctly stated above, citing the definition of "funk," this was the main crux of my argument against 84.44/Kridian all along. Because there are so many "funk" elements incorporated into Drum & Bass as a whole -- spanning a plethora of subgenres -- to say that "funk elements" or even "dark funk elements" are the defining characteristic of "Neurofunk" is beyond ludicrous. Being a producer and a DJ since the term started to stake its claim, exacerbated particularly by the old neurofunk.com site (now gone), I've heard and continue to hear just about every drum & bass track that hits the shelves and if not via vinyl, then via download or online samples on sites like Chemical Records, Red Eye, Breakbeat Science, etc. I make it my business to listen to as many tracks per day/week/month as possible. I'm a head, and I love Drum & Bass as a whole -- it is and always will be my favorite musical genre -- so like any other good aficionado of something I keep up with it all the time. Now while I can't claim to have heard every single track from every artist, I can claim to have heard almost every track by all the artists named in the discussion here. And I can say unequivocally that I've definitely heard enough to get a solidified idea of their typical sounds and style -- and own just about every single, EP and LP put out by the main "Neurofunk artists" in question/contention within this discussion (Ed Rush & Optical, Ryme Tyme, Matrix, Stakka & Skynet, Kemal & Rob Data, etc., etc., and can take pictures to prove it). That said, I'll now touch on what you said last, "Drum and Bass has always been a small underground musical style, and has evolved as a mixture of different styles. As a result, you will always have considerable overlap between different genres."

The problem at hand in this fight lies in the separation of two styles purportedly different, when they really aren't. The only true difference is one (Techstep) existed long before the other style (if you consider it that, which I really don't) and the twain essentially have no real discernible, definable difference that isn't arbitrary or subjective depending on who you ask. We know how the term originated, but as I say below: how it originated, and the track used to typify said sound of the paradigm of Neurofunk in Simon Reynold's eyes (the proclaimed originator of the term), Source Direct's "The Cult," sounds NOTHING like what would be called Neurofunk today -- nor does its remix. In fact, it sounds nothing like any Ed Rush & Optical track I've ever heard.

This is where the line begins to blur and where new heads who fancy the term, or new-age producers who want to fall into a niche that separates them from "Techstep" start using it just to use it. On that note, I'll address what you said about people on DOA using the term. Well, yeah, some do... though the consensus view on DOA is that most Dogs actually don't accept the term as legitimate, as shown in another link in some of the previous discussion logs. However, those that DO claim it's a style can nary muster the ability to actually define it with anything substantial or agreeable. The "funk elements" argument obviously is invalid, since all DnB, by its very virtue, in every single genre, contains lots of funk elements. The only other real believable argument is it's "more danceable." Okay, well, that may be -- but that still goes against the original definition of the "term" Neurofunk, since The Cult isn't funky or very danceable at all. Thus, you could coin it as "neo-Neurofunk" if you want to somehow link it to the original (though I personally can't see the minutest connection in sounds from The Cult to The Creeps), but that would also mean Ed Rush and optical didn't pioneer anything. I mean, okay, take this as another example: Desimal termed /classified his personal style as "Biofunk," not Neurofunk, all right? Does that make it a legitimate style just because he used that term to describe his work? Absolutely not. I could call my style "Dibbiwawafunk" and heads all over the world could subsequently start using that term to describe a style they feel represents that, but that doesn't make it a valid term just because misinformed fans think it is and use it as such.

A style becomes a style (or substyle, in this case) when it clearly breaks away and evolves from another style, having its own unique sound that, from that point on, characterizes it. Case-in-point, Techstep can be CLEARLY defined juxtaposed to, say, Jump-up or Intelligent or even Hardstep. But when it comes to Techstep versus proclaimed "Neurofunk," this is where this blurry veil of obfuscation starts to enshroud the argument and definitions become solely subjective. What does that tell you?

It tells you that it really doesn't have any recognizable traits that truly distinguish it from Techstep on the level that other separate, valid subgenres of DnB do (Jump, Jungle, Intelligent) other than "danceability," and to me that isn't enough. Plus, to some people who feel that Neurofunk is a real style, like Kridian, "danceability" isn't what separates it. There's no consensus view in the community on it, and even those who accept it don't see eye-to-eye. In NO other genre is this a big issue (save maybe Liquid Funk/Intelligent for the same reason). To me, that signals that nobody knows what the bloody hell Neurofunk is. You don't see Intelligent fans disputing what's Intelligent and what's Techstep because it's obvious which is which. There's cross-over in all genres, yes, because some breaks and other samples are used in all genres -- but not so much so that it wholly muddles one sound in contrast to another -- e.g. you can still tell the difference between an Intelligent track using an Amen Break and a Techstep track using an Amen Break. When it does that, it's the same sound. Which is why I say Neurofunk = Techstep and Techstep = Neurofunk. Is there danceable Techstep and non-Danceable Techstep? Of course, but that doesn't mean it isn't still Techstep in the end.

Bakemono 12:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Protection

I've placed a protection page in the hopes of attracting at least one admin to help resolve this dispute. Basically, there has been a revert war ongoing for almost a month now, which is frustrating all parties involved. Both have, at times, attempted good faith edits, and, at other times, have succumbed to frustration. Let's please keep our heads and discuss the following issues until a consensus emerges. I would suggest a one week time frame, with votes on these issues. If at the end of the week, a majority (+3 at least) emerges on either, than the discussed edits should be made.

Please discuss these edits -- this is wiki policy, and it may be a good way to become more accustomed to maintaining civility, avoiding revert wars, while making edits. I realize this is time consuming, and appreciate your cooperation.

WormwoodJagger 11:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It would seem that these are the abiding issues (feel free to add more):

i agree jagger as long as insults are not part of this reform otherwise, its back to ground zero.

No insulting here, I welcome a logical debate provided he actually answers my points in full and doesn't dodge them this time around.

Bakemono 03:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Kridian 15:00, 25 August 2006.

Neurofunk as a subgenre of Techstep/Neurofunk as Techstep

If Neurofunk is a subgenre, it deserves its own article. If Neurofunk is Techstep, then, um, there should be no name for it.... or it deserves a special explanation in Techstep article.

Neurofunk is obviously a subgenre as much as Techstep is a subgenre of dnb otherwise the community wouldnt even mention it. The term "Funk" was added for a reason, the same way "Funk-metal" is a term used to describe a subgenre of rock/metal - a style of rock/metal heavily influenced by funk. now, which words can be used to define it, to describe it, and which tunes are pure techstep and which are neurofunk; which artists developed neuro and who continues to develop neuro; should a techstep, drumfunk, or liquid funk artist be included on signature recordings if he only did 1 neuro tune or only prominent neurofunk artists should be included? if simon reynolds coined the term neurofunk, well, so was an american journalist responsible for coining the term "jazz", irritating the likes of miles davis who claimed that there was no such thing as jazz but only black music; a group of 2 artists from nyc coined the term "punk rock" in 1972. the fact that someone coined the neuro term must be irrelavant to the fact that neurofunk is prominent style of music. otherwise, its anarchy on wiki and reverting these pages becomes the only valuable solution.

If Simon Reynolds coined the term, the term should therefore be applicable to the track he originally dubbed as the primary example, right? That is to say, "The Cult" is what all other Neurofunk tracks should ideally resemble in every way, otherwise they aren't Neurofunk. "The Cult" is the template of Neurofunk, so to speak. And if he coined the term, then his definition is canon. It's what Neurofunk is -- if it's indeed a true subgenre (which I say is bullocks, because it isn't a subgenre at all given the current application of the term). Problem is, of all the artists you say are exclusively Neurofunk, funnily enough almost NONE of their tracks sound anything remotely like "The Cult." However, they do sound like Techstep. Also, "funk," by Reynold's definition, was never a requisite element for Neurofunk. However, it was for Techstep.

Neurofunk is not a legitimate subgenre of Drum & Bass.

Neurofunk is only a subgenre because non-UK, web-kiddy DnB heads like you, Robert/Kridian, have tried to separate themselves from the general, mainstream UK Techstep pack using a term started by Simon Reynolds to do so. Neurofunk.com, before it closed, only helped to spread this nonsense further. It's only semi-prominent because this new wave of DnB fan hears the term from someone else just as clueless and doesn't have the musical knowledge to know it's BS, so they just start calling things that are Techstep, Neurofunk. The plain and simple fact is there's no more "funk" in a Noisia track than there is in a Kemal track -- if anything, there's a lot less, along with a lot less compositional genius/talent. This is why you can talk the talk, but you can't back it up with any proof. You keep spouting the same rhetoric without any substantial foundation to your claims. Where are the articles? Where are you cites? So, I guess I'll do the same until you answer the questions or go away.

Yet again, you never answered my main question -- the one of sole importance here in this whole debate. WHAT dark funk elements ARE in a "neuro" track that aren't in tracks you claim are "Tech" instead of neuro. So, I suppose we'll use Noisia as an example one more time.

What specific samples or "funk basslines" do their tracks contain that a Kemal track doesn't? Seems sort of stupid to say it's a single sound that "defines" the neurofunk sound, as every artist defines their own sound with their own basslines, their own samples tweaked to originality which subsequently defines them.

Next, let's define "funk," shall we? Seems there's quite a slant on different "funk" sounds, and all the funk I know has very little transfer to what people proclaim is "neurofunk" and defined by some sort of funk sound that's no longer truly a funk sound at that point. Brothers Johnson are funk, Delegation is funk, Plush is funk, Rockwell is funk, Shalamar is funk, even Luther Vandross did funk (e.g. Never Too Much), and many were different in both sound and musical composition respectively. Even funk itself is a fusion of sounds -- jazz, blues and soul, so it's natural there will be variants in every track. So then, how can there be a single "funk" sound that makes neurofunk if funk itself isn't a single sound? Is it the plucked bass guitar sound -- because I've never heard that in a Noisia track? What is it? But because those incorporated elements (soul, jazz, blues) comprise funk, by your rationale, then a DnB song that had one of those elements would therefore qualify to be labeled as "funk." A tech song that had a bluesy sample, jazzy sample or soul sample in it (at any point) would therefore become Neurofunk.

Citing again the Amen Break, which has its origins exclusively in funk. Almost all breaks chopped and used in DnB come from funk (Apache, etc.). The Amen Break is used in more Drum & Bass tracks than I can count, spanning every imaginable genre. So if "funk influence" is what solely defines Neurofunk, then you're only further showing there's no separation and countering yourself.

If there was any reason the word "funk" was added to the term Neurofunk -- which only Simon Reynolds knows for sure -- it was most certainly because the sound had a "funky" feel in his opinion, yet still maintaining the mind & body stimulating aspects of Techstep. It was driving, highly danceable, funky -- in total contrast to the grimey, impossible-to-dance-to Techstep tracks of his day. Why else might he have added funk? Well, possibly for the reason mentioned above: DnB of all genres has a massive funk influence vis-a-vis breaks, samples, et al. Another reason? It simply sounds cool.

But first, before anything else, please kindly point out any one of those blatant/recognizable "funk" elements out in a Noisia track that doesn't exist in a Kemal, Stakka or Bad Company track (or others not in your list/those you deem non-Neurofunk). Let's get this logical debate rolling.

Bakemono 03:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Neurfounk Artists

Let's list, one by one, and debate.

rymetyme, ed rush and optical, matrix, fierce, silent witness and break, phace, noisia, mayhem, decimal, misanthrop, cause 4 concern, sinthetix, corrupt souls, kiko, optiv, rob f, telematrik, mindscape, the upbeats and gridlok. i consider these artists to be exclusively neuro in contrast to some prominent artists from other genres who step into neuro, produce a tune, and steps out a.s.a.p. - the bandwagon syndrome - so lets debate.

Techstep artists: Ryme Tyme (his name isn't single word -- I figured someone who knew Matrix personally would know that much), Matrix, Ed Rush, Optical, Fierce, Kemal & Rob Data (AKA Konflict), Source Direct, Cause 4 Concern, Black Sun Empire, Masheen, Typecell, Kemal, Klute, Decimal, Corrupt Souls, Stakka & Skynet, Friction, Silent Witness, Break, Hydro, )EIB(, Trace, J Majik, EBK, Prolix, Chris Su, SKC, Future Prophecies, John B, Bulletproof, Kryptic Minds, Teebee, Concord Dawn, Dom & Roland, State of Mind, Polar, Skinny, Stratus, Technical Itch, Hive, Gridlok, Optiv, The Militia, Drum Kru, Usual Suspects, Moving Fusion, Adam F, Aquasky, Raiden, D-Bridge, Future Forces, Subphonics, Keaton, etc., etc. -- the list goes on and on, including everyone else you've listed above.

Neurofunk Artists: The exact same list as the Techstep list I wrote above. Why? There's no difference, only this pretend difference which you can't lend any technical credence or divergence to. Where's the separation? What makes one artist "exclusive" and another one who simply "dabbles?" Typify the Neurofunk sound and then show how you listed artist fit exclusively into that definition with every single track they make; every sample/sound they use in their tracks; whereas other you say merely "dabble" don't.

TO BAKEMONO - from Kridian

i disagree. BSE, masheen, typecell, kemal, klute, friction, stakka+skynet, hydro, trace, j magik (??!!),ebk, prolix, future prophecies, john b (??!!), bulletproof, kryptic minds (??!!), teebee, concord dawn, dom+roland, state of mind, polar, skinny (??!!), stratus, technical itch (??!!), hive (??!!), the militia (??!!), usual suspects (??!!), moving fusion (??!!), adam f (??!!), aquasky (??!!), raiden (??!!), d-brisge, future forces, subphonics, keaton (??!!) ARE MOS DEF NOT NEURO ARTISTS BUT PURE TECH (STEP) ARTISTS. i agree that names which i didnt mention from your list could be open for a debate though. NEUROFUNK IS MOS DEF A LEGIT SUBGENRE OF DNB, REJECTED BY YOU AS A SOLE ADVOCATE HERE BUT CANNED BY THE COMMUNITY AND BY OTHER WRITERS OF DNB HERE ON WIKI. PERIOD.

Kridian

The point is, whether YOU agree or not is totally irrelevant. This isn't YOUR fake style, YOU didn't start it or originally define it and, based on your admitted credentials (or lack thereof), you really don't have general expertise or the musical knowledge to speak about it. You don't even produce. Having a background in/knowledge of funk music doesn't make you the foremost expert on a Drum & Bass style with "funk" in its name -- because that funk and this supposed "funk" are two completely different kinds of "funk." Now if you want to address some of my points logically, that's fine. But all I've seen you do now and forever is disregard everything I've said and claim everything you've said is truer than truth itself. Yet, you still won't technically (or musically) back up any of your claims, you just point and say "that's wrong!" Well, that may work in some 3rd grade German schoolyard, but in a logical argument it doesn't quite hold water. Once again, I'm fully open to a logical debate with you other than just spouting rhetoric about "funk music," name-dropping DnB Producers you claim to know (once again without proof) and stating facts that have nothing to do with the issue at hand. So, if you want to work together on this thing amicably, I'm game. But if you're not willing to bend, we'll just go the same route as before.

Bakemono

Bakemono 03:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

bakemono, stop acting stupid. i wrote rymetyme as a single word here on this talk page but on my definition of neuro, i wrote it as 2 separate words since i am the sole writer: you only added tunes to signature recordings, lets not forget this. im open for a debate but i dont have the time in my life to be at war with you or anyone else, specially a silly net war. to know matrix was easy because i have a reputation in the music biz as far as label production goes so i approached him for projects and he agreed. im fusing - along with partner bill laswell - dnb artists vs jazz musicans. srd already agreed to distro so 90% of my favorite dnb artists agreed to this fusion while 4 of them refused, prefering to stay as purists. so for me its normal to chat with matrix, paradox, fanu, bse, corrupt souls, evol intent, amit and countless others because this is my proffesion. perhaps for you to meet these guys is the equivelent of a virtual reality trip like it used to be for me as far as meeting the rolling stones and the clash - which i never did because i was a fan and a kid back then - but now, just chating to jamie matrix about a dnb/house/jazz fusion project is quite normal to me. you

your list looks good but j majik doesn fit. future prophecies?? would you like to have their e-mail?? im close friends with tony "anthun" and richard "rich" since i worked with them on a fusion project: i put them together with dj disk from the invisible scratch pickles and bernie worrell from parliament funkadelic. i will get tony - hes more communicative than rich whos a bit timid - to mail you so we can stop this: "do you know this guy??", "i dont believe it"!!, "prove it"!! i will ask tony from future prophecies to mail you and for him to define his sound as far as tech or neuro. he will define it, not me!! i can call matrix to see if hes willing to mail you as well but he only likes to work and not participate in silly debates.

i agree with the majority of your above mentioned artists while my advice is to make one single article - techstep as a major subgenre of dnb, neurofunk as an extention, perhaps a progression of techstep. i dont think the brits know dark funk music at at all - they could buy funk records but they cant make funk - since funk is 100% african american music and i grew up with funk since i was born and raised in new york. all the european funk and jazz that i heard in my life was pure imitation, a very pale version of these styles since you have to be from the streets of new york, detroit, and chicago to really understand african american beats and basslines. there are funk elements in dnb but to be honest, dnb is basically techno music with elements of all different styles of music in it. "bluesy baby" (ed rush+optical rmx) is the closest thing to the experimental, instrumental jazz/rock/funk fusion of miles davis so all these elements are there quite clearly. otherwise, what techstep/neurofunk artists do is to add funky elements to their sinth basslines which gives the music a "dark, melancholic, american funk feel". dont forget that "dark elements of all african american music" comes straight from the blues, an early, traditional, spoken word format of music related with their pain - and shame - as far as slavery goes. you can only find this in the states while european dark music elements comes from classical - wagner as an example - and ambient - brian eno as another example - and pretty much used in the uk and across europe. "darkness" is everywhere but americans can never quite understand european darkness and translate it properly the same way that europeans dont have a background in slavery, humiliation and shame: perhaps only the dub/jamaican community in brixton can have an understanding of what true darkness is all about and they do: im loaded with dubplate hardcore dub here at home.

im getting future prophecies to mail you anyway - brian singleton at yahoo - so we can for once and for all stop this nonsense. take some of those artists out - perhaps about 4 of them - while i can agree in doing the same. if you agree with what i wrote - if you wish to change anything let me know - then we can do a positive article while adding perhaps a photo of the creeps front cover as an example of neuro/tech. until of course, somebody else comes along in the future to delete and edit everything that we did. can you understand now what a waste of time this is??

Kridian

Great idea

what a great thing that you locked this article. a positive move - check out the jesus article it was locked - towards the true definition without vandalism. never to wipe out an article without any substantial reason; never ADD WRONG INFO!!

thanks jagger.

Kridian

Only a great thing because he locked the article with your latest edits in place. Had he locked them with my edits still intact, I get the feeling you'd be saying differently, am I right? Never fill an article with a page full of made-up, subjective, non-NPOV BS.

Bakemono 03:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

attn: jagger and bakemono,

why dont you guys do this: come up with a text for techstep and neurofunk - a combined article - and take some of the most accurate info from both articles already here in place. set up a list of prominent techstep and neurofunk artists and signature - i believe classics only - recordings and add a photo of a classic neuro album (such as the creeps) and a techstep album (torque, modus operandi, industry, underfire album, many to choose from) and links to forums: dsci4, doa, SLR, dnbnation, etc., and you guys are on. i was trying to get advocates to make a contribution but no one is taking interest and i know why: nobody wants to go through hell, debates, research and writing in order to make a contribution to wiki. i can help but i have no further interest as far as giving my time is concerned. i dont really need definitions of music: i need the wax itself. and if we do a greater article for both styles, i believe that its only a matter of time for people to add crap and further edit with wrong info anyway. i want to download what i wrote and hope for the best as far as wiki goes.

best Kridian

That's what I've been doing. Jagger was only called in as an advocate, not as someone who claimed to know about Drum & Bass or to rewrite this article. For that, I offer my services which I've been doing inbetween school and other more pressing priorities. Be that as it may, I'm very willing to scan or take pictures of all of the above albums to post here -- since I actually own them all -- and we're more than welcome to use them. However, in accordance with Wiki-policy, "forum links" have no place in an article. You posts links to things that are relative to the content in the article, like the Simon Reynolds interview. Not to forums that have some inadvertent connection to a style you claim exists because "some posters" on there think it to be legitimate. That has no supportive bearing on the main article/issue, and people's opinions in posts on a forum aren't factual information. Therefore, it has no place as a link of interest.

Bakemono 12:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

i just read this discussion pg today - oct 5th, 2006 - and i agree with the many things said here and disagree with other things. i think that it boils down to bakemono and i to come to an agreement if this can be possible. i´m willing but as long as mutual respect can be used as a tool to write a better article, true to it´s definition. neurofunk is most definately a subgenre of dnb without doubt so it should be treated this way and to never merge with the techstep article even though i agree that there´s a very thin line between both styles which too many people cannot recognize. but, it´s time for people to start recognizing the difference because it´s there, a style which is being promoted on ram records and on teebee´s subtitles label to name a few. and bakemono, i guess we both are dnb heads - i´ve been involved with dnb since randall was spinning plates back in 93 - and we are the only ones left here with this article. maybe we can both write a good article because i liked the one on konflict which you made contributions to. bakemono: you should develop the techstep article which is incomplete. an artist which you mentioned here before, on this page - masheen - is a techstep artist, not a neuro one. 80% of your list of artists which you mentioned here, previously, are techstep artists. but again, the line between neuro and tech is so damn thin that, i agree, it can generate disputes.

after countless edits on my part and continuous research - aside from collecting neurofunk since 1998 - i consider what is written now - oct 6, 2006 - to truly represent the definition including it´s history dating back to miles davis and funk. anyone can click on techstep in order to know where neuro progressed from in recent years. personally, i didnt contribute to the techstep article apart from very minor editing. i´m willing to work with somebody as long as they dont wipe out what it´s written because of their personal point of view. i guess it´s about certain compromises and agreements but without changing the whole spectrum.

my credentials: www.innerhythmic.com - click on "contact" and my name will appear: robert soares, rep for germany. i´m a member of material productions in nyc, i´ve been working in music production for the past 17 years and involved with drum & bass since it´s foundations in jungle back in 1993. currently, i´m working with prominent dnb artists such as evol intent, corrupt souls, paradox, amit, fanu, black sun empire, d-star, ohm resistance crew, rawthang, system noize, future prophecies, while collecting demos from countless others. i´m also related with bill laswell, herbie hancock, john zorn, pharoah sanders, nils peter molvaer, toshinori kondo, graham haynes, byard lancaster, guy licata and counteless others who actually played in a recording session with "drum breaks" delivered by the above mentioned dnb artists for a project entiled INAMORATA due next year through NU-URBAN distribution in the uk. i was the one - along with bill laswell - who actually conceived this project, besides being the a&r man behind the choice of dnb artists while guiding them towards what direction to take with the drum breaks. i just want people to know where i´m coming from and why i decided to make a contribution to wiki as far as the definition of a certain style of dnb is concerned.

Kridian

Lists and samples

Discussion continued from User talk:Kridian and User talk:Zeibura

Regarding the lists of tracks, it'd be cool if we could end up replacing them with a "notable productions" section similar to the one in the electro house article (but maybe a bit longer); that is, a list of tracks and albums with a short description as to why each one is a signature recording. If you can think of any such descriptions, then please add them!

For the "samples" section, something like the one in electronic body music would work fine. I have a few of the tracks in the list on my computer, but wikipedia needs them in an irregular file format which is gonna need a very particular software to convert to. Probably a good idea to do the lists first anyway, as then we could take, say, 6 tracks with good descriptions and get samples of them and upload.

The other thing this article is lacking is references, which I'm quite happy to help looking for.

Opinions? - Zeibura ^Talk 20:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

hi zeibura,

forget about contributions coming from other people because i´ve tried all dnb forums from DOA to DSCI4 to DNBNATION while everyone approved the article, no one came offering contributions. all i got here was vandalism in many different ways. you´re the first person to actually offer contributions so im happy about that. pls help with the clips because i dont even have the equipment or knowledge on how to do it properly. also if you wish to look for references, pls do. optical´s statement that he was influenced - virus as well - by parliament funkadelic comes from a knowledge magazine article that i read when the creeps lp was being reviewed. matrix´s statement that miles davis´in a silent way album was very influential on his sound actually came from a conversation that i was having with him in his flat in london because we met for production reasons. i happen to work with bassist producer bill laswell and im responsible for a&r/concept production so i went looking for jamie matrix in relation to a certain project - jazz/dnb related - which he agreed to participate in.

here´s what i think:

1) bluesy baby - ram jam world (ed rush & optical rmx) - all the elements of neuro are there: jazz (the miles influence), techno, dnb, the wah-wah element, the house element (very hidden but there) and perhaps the first tune to really distance itself from techstep.

2) pacman rmx - ed rush & optical (ram trilogy rmx) - an anthem and a hit on the dnb charts.

3) cryogenic - sinthetix - just plain classic neuro - 2nd wave.

4) konflict - roadblock - classic, or the kemal & dresden codex tune listed on sig recordings which has a heavy wah-wah effect on the bassline.

5) phace - hot rock.

6) gridlok - bottomfeeder - you can trace gridlok´s sound on bottom feeder all the way back to wormhole.

but by doing only 6 we leave out: compound (wormhole), we enter (instrumental version/optical rmx), climate (metro) and 1 more classic so perhaps we should 10 which is a good round number. lets both do the selection.

thanks, rob Kridian

the 6 chosen tunes. clips are ready to be placed. will start some literature for them a.s.a.p.:

1) compound - ed rush & optical

2) peep show - C4C

3) cryogenic - sinthetix

4) climate - matrix & fierce

5) glimpse of truth - kemal & dresden codex

6) hot rock - phace

Yup, those six tracks sound good. I have to admit I don't have any of the other five, so if you could get them that'd be brilliant. When you upload samples to Wiki they have to be less than 30 seconds, and encoded in Ogg Vorbis file format; the software Audacity (which is a free download on all platforms) will do this for you. - Zeibura^(talk) 15:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

zeibura:

thanks for getting back to me. im really interested in upgrading the article. i deleted signature recordings and signature albums as you said, not really necessary and the clips are a great sunstitute - while im getting some help from a forum collector who will place the clips. your contribution on origin, helping to describe the wah wah filter effect was quite brilliant. if you can continue to help in this manner would be great because i couldnt handle the article 100% alone due to mind overload (laughs), i mean, its hard to write here and the white screen is blinding. it seems that gridlok fans or his people upgraded an article on him here and placed his break the system lp image so i think its a bit of an overkill to have the image twice on wiki. i will try to replace break the system with rymetyme´s set genre track graphics "we enter" (optical rmxs) or phace´s psycho lp image so we can have a bit of a variation. anything else that you think is necessary, let me know and pls continue with you help which is appreciated. thanks, kridian (rob).

ZEIBURA:

great work!! the samples were added and i fixed some of the writings on origin in order to match your contribution as far as the wah wah filter effect goes. now it reads like in a flow. dont know how to prove that rymetyme - ref wise - was a pioneer but there was a time that the tramen breakbeat, reece on the drop and industrial sounding techstep sub-genre was taking over the scene with no u-turn records leading the way along with moving shadow and a piece here and there by metalheadz - mainly with source direct as reps - when rymetyme along with matrix were doing very dark funk tunes with a techstep influence. the actual crew who were working together in search of a new sound using funk as a tool - this is back in 1997 - was optical, matrix, and rymetyme with with ed rush a bit annoyed with reece and tramens which was already happening in 1995 with trace, the true pioneer of techstep. i was there watching everything since 1993 and i can say that 2 tunes were indeed responsible for the emergence of neurofunk: funktion by ed rush & optical on V recordings (1998) and we enter orig version on saigon/no u-turn (1998). and it fits what simon reynolds´ said about the beats: they were not breaking anymore but techstep tramens or the 2 step breakbeat were replaced by steady backbeats, dark ambient remained, reece drops were out and replaced by a dark funk influenced bassline with wah wah style of effect over the top. now how to prove that with a reference in relation to rymetyme??!!

funny if you click on rymetyme´s we enter rmxs graphics on neuro article, you will find the saying "the funk of the future". this crew consisting of ed rush, optical, matrix and rymetyme were more concerned about funk, house and jazz rather than amens, reece, and industrial because techstep in a way was taking the fun out of dnb. in reality, it was funktion on V recordings and the orig we enter the tunes which diverted a certain new sound away from techstep yet the link between both styles was alwaays there. something similar to what ltj bukem did by taking a distance fromm traditional jungle by replacing the ragga elements with jazz on logical progression level 1 album (1996) making him one of the pioneers of dnb. guess that rymetyme and optical - along with ed rush & matrix - did the same in order to leave techstep.

pls continue to make contributions because i wouldnt mind seeing this article as A. pls let me know if the writings describing the samples are good. if you wish to improve them, pls do. its for the best of the article.

Kridian

ATT: ZEIBURA

all samples were placed and tested and everything seems to be working fine. i wrote some guide lines for every track, hope it stands for wiki standards. let me know about the links that you are about to finish - phace interviews - and i´ll get in touch with knowledge magazine because they interviewed me once so i know the editor. i can claim the OPTICAL reference to p-funk being an influence on his virus sound if i can get the link to this knowledge article for the creeps lp. cant do much about the MATRIX statement in relation to IN A SILENT WAY being an influence on his work because this statement was made to me in his flat but i can perhaps call him and explain the situation here and get an interview going with some journalist, then we can get his quotes. let me know how i should procede on these matters.

best, Kridian

Looking Good

Keep it up.

The discussion over neurofunk vs techstep reminds me of jungle vs dnb. I've got plenty of records that could be qualified either as neurofunk or techstep, personally I don't see a difference but I'll leave this argument to other. --Dustek 19:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Liquid Funk

Why is this article different from Liquid Funk? Neurofunk is just another term for it, in my opinion. DubCrazy (talk) 04:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)DubCrazy

Actually, it's a completely different style. Neurofunk sounds an awful lot techier and darker, whereas Liquid Funk is a lot houseyer. 85.148.120.85 (talk) 10:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Neurofunk artists; Where is it and/or why has it been moved/merged?

All i want to know is, where is the list that WP had a while back that listed all the known Neurofunk artists. Also, if it has been moved/merged, why has it been done? There are many other genres and sub-genres of Drum & Bass that haven't been moved/merged. Also, the fact of the matter is that there are many pages on WP that detail other "sub-genres" of D&B that as far as i can see don't even deserve their own page and should be merged with others. Neurofunk is well established genre in its own right, and to merge the list of Neurofunk artists with anything other than itself is frankly absurd! thought-scorpion79.73.222.112 (talk) 19:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:54, 22 June 2013 (UTC)