Talk:Space music

Per talk page guidelines Layout, please post new topics at the bottom

OR&SYN Tags

Despite this being a somewhat informative article there are many problems with it. It is clear that a wide range of sources (many of them weak) are being combined to forward a synthesized, original research based article. WP:OR and WP:SYN guidelines are clearly contravened. Many of the citations are WP:POV comments left by contributing editors and are supported by self-published sources and internet items. This is problematic in relation to WP:RS policy. It seems evident that there are few if any verifiable secondary sources provided, that one could consider references on the subject of space music. A reference list would be useful, in addition to the notes, so that we can see exactly what the sources are, at glance. It would be good if the main editors involved in this article would endeavor to improve the referencing and tone down the synthesis so that it can be clearly shown that content reflects the view of reliable published sources that deal specifically with the subject space music. It is requested that the tags remain in place until the issues are addressed. Thanks. Semitransgenic (talk) 17:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

This is by far the best article in the New Age music topics, and with 102 references, one of the numerically most referenced articles in WP's popular music topics. Many months of intense research effort have been invested in this article (as well as painful personal conflicts endured) by a number of editors.

"WP:RS" This is also the best article that can be written with the available sources, academic and popular, primary and secondary. Writing an article to include substantial primary sources is acceptable if best efforts have been made to locate secondary sources that make the same points. That has been done here.

WS:RS has historically been edited back and forth, which means there was no consensus in the fine details. At the time most of this article was written, what was considered reliable was based on the context. The context of niche popular music is very much a matter of artistic opinions mostly not published in journals or newspapers.

Also, the WP practice (which was at one time actually written into guiderules) is to give more slack to the exposition of art and music articles.

That means it comes down to a debate over slack. Given that this article is already, say, 90% as good as it can be, does Wikipedia have enough slack to include it more or less referenced as is?

"WP:OR and WP:SYN" I doubt it. Every reference has been vetted for OR and debated, some more than once. A few issues were spotted and corrected after an independent review. You'll need to identify specifics, not generalizations.

I also disagree with your generalizations, and I'm unable to identify any fixable examples of your general complaints. Drive-by tagging need not be tolerated where nothing is obviously wrong, and the tagger is unable or unwilling to provide and debate specific examples for improvement. Accordingly I will vet and debate specific examples that you provide, but if you are unable to do so, or the lack the time for months of lengthy debates which this article has generated in the past, I will be removing the tags. Milo 20:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I strongly endorse Semitransgenic's analysis. The current article is founded upon, and lends significant undue weight to an unverifiable, unsustainable original research theory which has been lent the appearance of authority via the contrivance of having volumes of cherry-picked primary sources and selectively (mis)quoted third party sources insinuated into it. All of the above is deeply problematic, and an objective analysis of the situation by uninvolved editors at this juncture is a very welcome development. --Gene_poole (talk) 20:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

All I know is that I have viewed one of the few published sources that deals specifically with space music and it paints a rather different picture to what is painted in this article. Lanza (1994:185) states very clearly Space music is, in fact, easy-listening with amnesia, sounding like the future but retaining unconscious ties to elevator music of the past. Also, Space music can then be regarded as an outgrowth of easy-listening that is even further removed from musical foreground (p.189). Lanza readily interchanges the term space music with new age music, in one sentence it reads: Nevertheless, new-age/space/adult alternative music proponents keep reviving the debate over background music's aesthetic value (p. 187). The historical outline given in Lanza is not reflected in the Space music article. Can I ask Milo, do you have a reference for a published source that presents the historical outline as described in this article? Semitransgenic (talk) 20:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Taking it from the top:

Space music, also spelled spacemusic, is an umbrella term used to describe music that evokes a feeling of contemplative spaciousness. Space music can be found within a wide range of genres. It is particularly associated with ambient, new age, and electronic music. Some music from the western classical, world, Celtic, traditional, experimental and other idioms also falls within the definition of space music.

the definition provided here stems from one internet source, which is a commercial radio show - in fact it's possible that there may be a WP:UNDUE issue with the amount of emphasis placed upon this one source - however I note that none of the citations explicitly supports either point 1)Space music can be found within a wide range of genres or point 2)Some music from the western classical, world, Celtic, traditional, experimental and other idioms also falls within the definition of space music. Are there sources that demonstrably show both of these statements to be true? If not this is one of the first examples of synthesis that needs to be highlighted. Semitransgenic (talk) 21:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

As with all other musical genres, idioms and styles, "space music" can only viably be defined by its inherent musical characteristics.

Instead, this article currently tries hard to suggest that the term is some sort of catch-all phrase that can be applied willy-nilly to any music that happens to be broadcast by a single US-based, nationally-syndicated specialist music radio show - no matter if it's classical, Celtic, Flamenco, mediaeval, electronic, Indian, a film soundtrack, ECM-style cool jazz or anything else. This is a specious, unsustainable piece of original research, and it has to go.

In reality, "space music" is part of a continuum of music which is broadly atmospheric in context (ie, which most people familiar with it usually choose to term "ambient" (however accurately/inaccurately) in contemporary parlance). It is certainly not the "property" of any one person, group or commercial entity.

If 100 people refer to something as "X", and 1 person refers to the same something as "Y", it is totally unacceptable to promote or imply that "Y" is a preferred or common terminology - yet that is exactly what the current version of this article does.

Instead it should properly reflect the fact that Steven Hill, John Diliberto, Chuck van Zyl, Forest, myself and my 2 colleagues and other broadcasters of note have all been programming pretty much the same mix of artists, albums and musical genres and styles, in a broadly similar manner, for a very long time - and that something known as "space music" - however it is defined - which people generally recognise as a consequence of its low-key, impressionistic, non-rhythmic, atmospheric, "space-inducing" sonic characteristics - is one of the recurrent themes common to all of our on-air activities. --Gene_poole (talk) 23:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

There is definitely a muddle, and it relates to confusing three specific areas: kosmische musik (notice the English translation, 'cosmic music', redirects to space music, Ambient music, and New age music. I'm not sure it's wise to ignore the literature pertaining to the evolution of each of these genres because one radio producer states that "Any music with a generally slow pace and space-creating sound image can be called spacemusic", this is actually a commercial entity's branding drive, that is what I find most contentious about all of this, never mind the blatant misrepresentations that exist in the article. Semitransgenic (talk) 00:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Bingo! "Any music with a generally slow pace and space-creating sound image can be called spacemusic". Actually, most people today would apply the generic term "ambient" to such music, because that has simply become the established colloquial parlance for most low-key, impressionistic, atmospheric music. HOS is unique in referring to that same sort of music as "space music". There's nothing wrong with that, of course - but - as you point out so incisively in your comment above - let's not lend that simple branding choice undue significance by pretending its something more than that. --Gene_poole (talk) 01:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Semitransgenic, you have presented your opening remarks in the coming long debate as though scholarship is important to you. Scholars are expected to research their positions when reasonably possible, to avoid wasting the time of others. All three editors currently posting here, including you, have in the past expressed their lack of available time. Please read all of the archives so we won't waste days of time re-re-re-debating merely the background to perennial issues that already have many well-established reasons, positions, exceptions, and agendas to consider. You will find answers, or at least positions, on some of the questions you've already asked.
On such a niche small, yet multidimensionally complex subject, getting up to speed from the archives could also help preserve your desired reputation as a scholar, by avoiding more lightly informed premature closures that you have already expressed above. c 04:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Milo, if you are proposing to commence making a meaningful contribution here, please ensure your comments address the specific points under discussion - simply, concisely, and unencumbered by such irrelevant personal speculations as the imagined desires and motivations of other editors. --Gene_poole (talk) 07:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok...

←Semitransgenic, all three editors currently posting here have previously expressed their lack of available time. Please read all of the archives. This will save our time for possibly making new progress on some perennial issues that are yet again raised for discussion. Milo 08:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Milo, if you have any desire to to see your opinions given anything even approaching serious consideration as a function of this discussion, it would be advisable to follow my previous request, and actually articulate them in the form of written responses which directly explain your opinions, and the specific justifications and WP policies you believe support those opinions, with respect to the numerous observations and comments dealing with the problematic content within, and tone of this article - which have been very plainly and succinctly articulated above by myself and Semitransgenic.

I venture to suggest that failing to become actively engaged in this discussion when strongly encouraged to do so - in almost the same breath as breezily suggesting that Semitransgenic simply go and "read the entire archive" instead, because (to paraphrase) you've 'already been through all of this before' - may ultimately cause others to begin asking troubling questions concerning the strength of your committment to the achievement of a true policy-compliant consensus on this subject. --Gene_poole (talk) 09:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Your suggestion is noted. Milo 17:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

This looks like a well-done article to me. There's always room for improvement but it gives an overall accurate description of the topic with lots of good references. The definition is not just from one radio show, it's supported by a variety of sources and authors. Compared to other music-style articles, this one has much better footnotes than most. --The Neutral Zone (talk) 23:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Like all WP articles, this one must comply with our content policies. That means no WP:OR, no WP:SYN and no WP:POV - all of which are currently present here in spades. The fundamentals of a decent article are in place - but it still has a long way to before it reaches that stage. --Gene_poole (talk) 01:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Why did you change my indenting? I've moved it back where it was, because I indented that way to reply to the main comment way up at the top and the comment in the middle of the section, about the definition. Neither of those are indented so I added one indentation level. I was not replying to the exchange between you and the other editor just above. About the various OR, SYN, POV policies you listed, the problems those policies describe don't look like they're happening here IMHO. --The Neutral Zone (talk) 04:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid they are, as numerous other editors over a long period of time have also concluded. We are now about to correct this. --Gene_poole (talk) 04:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

i would ask that editors address the content, rather than throwing accusations at other editors. Milo I would request that you please consider WP:CAI.

Can someone cite WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources that state specifically what is written in the lede regarding a definition of 'space music'? if not I am going to remove it and replace it with Lanza's view on the matter. Semitransgenic (talk) 13:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

References

Picture: citation

Space music typically evokes a sense of spatial imagery and emotion or sensations of floating, cruising, flying and other transportative sensations.

According to whom? are there a sources for this? or is it from the HOS website? Statements like this are deeply subjective so we need more than just one persons view on the matter, if WP:POV is to be avoided. Semitransgenic (talk) 16:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Further comments

An IP added the "transportive" word in place of ellipses alluding to the adjacent text paragraph. Seems reasonable.

IIRC, this subjective sensations issue has been previously referenced as objective. But, HoS source status may have to be re-decided first.

See below, #Discussion: The source status of Hearts of Space Milo 21:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Lede: first paragraph

Space music, also spelled spacemusic, is an umbrella term used to describe music that evokes a feeling of contemplative spaciousness. Space music can be found within a wide range of genres. It is particularly associated with ambient, new age, and electronic music. Some music from the western classical, world, Celtic, traditional, experimental and other idioms also falls within the definition of space music.

the definition provided here stems from one internet source, which is a commercial radio show - in fact it's possible that there may be a WP:UNDUE issue with the amount of emphasis placed upon this one source - however I note that none of the citations explicitly supports either point 1)Space music can be found within a wide range of genres or point 2)Some music from the western classical, world, Celtic, traditional, experimental and other idioms also falls within the definition of space music. Are there WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources that demonstrably show both of these statements to be true? If not this is one of the first examples of WP:SYN that needs to be highlighted. Semitransgenic (talk) 21:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Further comments

This issue has been ground to a fine powder in the archives. You would know that powder is explosive if you had read the archives as I requested, instead of having merely "viewed" them. Whatever, nothing new on this issue can be decided until the source status of Hearts of Space is re-decided.

See below, #Discussion: The source status of Hearts of Space Milo 21:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

References

Lede: Second paragraph

Space music ranges from simple to complex sonic textures, often (though not exclusively) lacking conventional melodic, rhythmic, or vocal components, typically evoking a "continuum of spatial imagery and emotion", beneficial introspection, attentiveness for deep listening, subtle trance effects called "spacey", (defined by the Compact Oxford Dictionary as "drifting and ethereal") and psychoacoustic spatial perceptions, particularly, sensations of flying, floating, cruising, gliding, or hovering.

Various problems with this whole paragraph, again almost exclusively from HOS, the secondary sources (Lanza & Lancaster) are used in a synthetic manner. No mention of psychoacoustics in either citation. And again there is confusion, some of the cites are not discussing 'space music' as set forth in the HOS definition. Even the HOS item is confused, one is discussing what it calls 'Contemplative music' and it clearly states The program has defined its own niche — a mix of ambient, electronic, world, new age, classical and experimental music. Artists and record companies around the world recognize Hearts of Space as the original, most widely heard, premiere showcase for "contemplative music, broadly defined." It really needs to be appreciated here that a commercial entity, that uses it's website to market a product, is the sole source for much of the information here. On top of the exisiting WP:OR & WP:SYN problem there is clearly a WP:NPOV issue and possible WP:SOAP problem with the lede content. As I expressed above, wires are being crossed here with regard to a number of clearly defined genres of music all of which are dealt with elsewhere on Wiki. We need WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources here and unless they are provided much of this text will have to be excised. Semitransgenic (talk) 14:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Further comments

Since you have only "viewed" rather than read the archives as I requested, you don't know anything about the source status debates that led to the way HoS is used as a source. You've completely missed major sourcing policies on which use of HoS is based. It's bit like claiming that because Microsoft sells commercial software, Microsoft references must be confined to a single article. Anyway, nothing can be done until HoS's source status is re-decided.

See below, #Discussion: The source status of Hearts of Space Milo 21:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

References

Lede: Third and fourth paragraph

Space music is used by individuals for both background enhancement and foreground listening, often with headphones, to enable states of relaxation, contemplation, inspiration, and generally peaceful expansive moods; it may promote health through relaxation, atmospherics for bodywork therapies, and effectiveness of meditation. Space music appears in many film soundtracks and is commonly played in planetariums.

An eclectic form of music, produced almost exclusively by independent labels, space music occupies a small niche in the marketplace, supported and enjoyed by a relatively small audience of loyal enthusiastic listeners.

More problems, again heavily reliant on HOS for much of this. This reads more like a description of 'New Age' music. In the cited Ambient Visions item, which is again a reiteration of content found on the HOS website, it states clearly: "Today our mission statement is down to four words: contemplative music, broadly defined. Hill states "I was originally drawn to electronic space music and other high-tech explorations, but underneath the patch cords I discovered the centuries-old tradition of contemplative sound." and about HOS "bringing together space-creating and contemplative music from many cultures and traditions; plus hundreds of local niche music shows covering everything from pipe organ to polka." In the cited article we also see mention of Yanni and Enya, so again it's somewhat confused. As before it's clear we need WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources that state specifically what is written in the lede regarding a definition of 'space music'. Semitransgenic (talk) 14:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Further comments

Nothing more can be done about these controversial issues since they depend on HoS's source status being re-decided.

New Age music is generally agreed to be a music business classification which includes Space music, but as the article says there is little agreement about it as a genre classification for space music, a point proved by the detailed survey of sources.

See below, #Discussion: The source status of Hearts of Space Milo 21:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

References

Definitions: Paragraph one

The term "space music" has evolved and changed since it was first used over a half century ago. While there is a general agreement among contemporary Space music radio programmers, music critics, authors, and record producers about the sound and uses of the music, there is little agreement about how to define the term and how space music fits within the continuum of music genres.

The cited sources for this paragraph and the assertions within it are HOS, despite this it doesn't appear to reflect the conclusion reached in the second sentence. Again WP:POV WP:UNDUE WP:SYN issues. Can someone provide WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources that can be used to establish the factuality of this? Semitransgenic (talk) 15:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Further comments

There's no point in researching, debating, and editing this point until HoS's source status has been decided.

See below, #Discussion: The source status of Hearts of Space Milo 21:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

References

Definitions: Paragraph two

Six referenced commentators do not use the term interchangeably with ambient music, one is ambiguous, and one does so. Nine referenced commentators use the term space music as a subgenre of new age music (separate from ambient music) and do not use it interchangeably, one is ambiguous, four use space music interchangeably with new age music, and four consider space music and new age music completely unrelated. Two referenced commentators refer to space music as a sub-genre of electronic rock.

Who conducted this survey? it's not clear. What is the source for this data? If there is none then it appears WP:OR is being used to buffet what might be a POV push. Semitransgenic (talk) 16:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Further comments

This is one of many kinds of "source-based research" required to write an article. Wikipedia editors did this exacting survey of sources referenced on this page to fulfill Wikipedia's function of "describing a controversy".

There is a lengthy archive discussion on this issue, which you would have known if you had read them as I requested, rather than just "viewed" them. Milo 21:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The statements in question are a synthesis of the opinions expressed in an arbitrary number of sources, and thus constitute original research. They are also self-referential. They should properly be replaced with a simple verfiable statement - something more along the lines of "Space music is most often identified as being either a type of, or stylistically related to New Age music." --Gene_poole (talk) 08:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

References

Definitions: Paragraph three

Stephen Hill, co-founder of "Music from the Hearts of Space" (syndicated nationally in the USA on National Public Radio and XM Satellite Radio), uses the phrase "contemplative music, broadly defined" as an overview to describe the music played on his station, along with the term "spacemusic". He states that the "genre spans historical, ethnic, and contemporary styles", and that it combines elements from many cultures and genres, blended with varieties of acoustic and electronic ambient music, "woven into a seamless sequence unified by sound, emotion, and spatial imagery." In his essay New age Music made Simple, he referred to space music as a sub-category of New Age.

More HOS WP:POV. As with all of the material that is cited from HOS it is WP:SPS. Point previously raised regarding HOS apply here also. Semitransgenic (talk) 20:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Further comments

Nothing about this issue can be decided until HoS source status is re-decided.

See below, #Discussion: The source status of Hearts of Space Milo 21:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

References

Definitions: Paragraph Four

Hill's partner and co-founder of "Music from the Hearts of Space" Anna Turner (1944-1996) wrote in her 1989 essay entitled Space Music, that "New Age Space music carries visions in its notes; it is transcendent inner and outer space music that opens, allows and creates space... this music speaks to our present moment, to the great allegory of moving out beyond our boundaries into space, and reflexively, to the unprecedented adventures of the psyche that await within."

This is usable, it appears to be a verifiable secondary source. I would like to check this over to see exactly what she is discussing because it seems to relate specifically to a type of New Age music; which fits with Lanza's view of space-music (as defined here) as a strain of New Age music with its origins in easy listening. Semitransgenic (talk) 20:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Further comments

You can add more sections here if you wish, but you state that you are short of time. You've made your HoS sourcing point for further discussion below. I think you will be wasting the time of all of us if you post any more references that depend on HoS's source status. This is not the simple issue that you have claimed. Depending on the several ways that status could be re-decided, you may have to reevaluate everything you have so far vetted. Milo 21:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

References

Discussion: The source status of Hearts of Space

Personally, considering that this has demonstrated itself to be a contentious issue, I think it would be best if it is discussed at WP:RSN, so community input can be availed of. Milo, are you happy to proceed with this proposal? Semitransgenic (talk) 21:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. --Gene_poole (talk) 00:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

That's the wrong question - the Hearts of Space radio show is not the source, the source is Stephen Hill, a widely respected music expert whose 30-plus year career includes radio programming, record label executive, music producer and mastering engineer. He's the person being quoted, not the radio station. Some of his essays appear on the current Hearts of Space website, but that's not the only place his words are referenced, and those essays have been republished by others as well. There's at least one book and one newspaper article quoting him listed in the footnotes. There might be more, I haven't reviewed them all yet. To the question of "is Stephen Hill a reliable source", yes, his qualifications satisfy the requirements of the verifiability policy. --The Neutral Zone (talk) 07:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The question is not whether Stephen Hill is a reliable source - but whether it's appropriate for the HOS website to be the primary source for this article. The HOS website is a reliable primary source for Hearts of Space. Here, however is a totally different story, because "space music" and "Hearts of Space" are not synonymous. --Gene_poole (talk) 08:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I love Stephen Hill, but I think the fact that he is the only source quoted in the top four or five paragraphs undermines the entry's legitimacy. Other sources are cited further down, which is great; I feel right away quite strongly that it's all Hill at the top. Also, "deep listening" is Hill's term not a general one (if it is it should link to a Wiki page) and should be handled as such. 78.100.132.186 (talk) 20:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Protected

Due to edit conflicts, I've temporarily protected this page. Please try to work out the differences on this page. I'll look in later and see if I can help. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Will, hopefully we can try to find agreement. Semitransgenic (talk) 02:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Will, I see comments have been made regarding me on your talk page, please view prior communications with said user if you doubt attempts at WP:GF were made. Milo has been antagonistic and condescending from the outset and refuses to seriously engage with the issues highlighted by the tagging, despite the problems having been noted by multiple editors. I would like to continue with a point by point analysis as previous attempts at rectifying the article have failed; with talk pages being reduced to forums. Would simply like to avoid this edit pattern in future and focus on content exclusively. Semitransgenic (talk) 04:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• I remember trying to resolve a dispute at Paraphilic infantilism and I kept wanting to say "you're all acting like babies" but that would have been stating the obvious. Unlike that case, the editors in this dispute are all mature, long-time contributors to the project whom I've seen making good edits in a variety of topics.
• I can't believe you guys are fighting over the definition of a music genre. Whatever. Just please keep it quiet enough so that no one calls the police. I'd hate to see anyone blocked over this.
• I'm sure that the article is protected on the "wrong version", but no version of any article on Wikipedia has ever been the "right version". All we can really do is make the wrong version less wrong. While we're in the process of doing that let's try to avoid reverting each other's edits or purposely antagonizing each other. If folks don't think they can do that right away I can extend the protection until the dust settles. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi will, thanks for your input. I'm sure others will agree, this is not simply about a genre definition, hence the current situation, there are issues with the article, they should be resolved, deletion of the offending content really would be the simplest way forward. The method outlined above is a way offer editors an opportunity to tease out the facts, it seemed to be a constructive approach at the time. Can I suggest that Milo reinsert his comments in the appropriate locations so we can keep the discussion ordered, or with your permission, I will copy and paste the material in from the older version? Semitransgenic (talk) 13:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

There's a Wikipedia cultural belief known as "eventualism", supported by the saying that 'there's no specified time limit for article improvement'.
Let's wait out the page protection as a cooling off period, then discuss ways to avoid another talk page edit war. Otherwise there's no way to discuss content issues. This pacing also gives us time that we've all said we want, to do the other things we do. Milo 00:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Milo, I appreciate your view but do not agree, the article was tagged because there are problems with the content, they will not be resolved unless there is a concerted push to address the problematic material. This is a matter that distinguishes itself from the notion of the incremental content improvement you refer to. We are all in agreement that the issue surrounding the use of HOS as the main source for the majority of views expressed here needs to be dealt with. I think the best way forward is to get neutral input, therefore I will be posting on WP:RSN in the next couple of days. You will be able to voice your opinions there. Aside from the HOS matter there are also other citation issues that need ironing out. I will be continuing to pick through the article as before so please do not take this as personal affront, I simply want to finish what I started with the tagging. Cheers. Semitransgenic (talk) 01:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Will, there you have it.
As I said at your talk page, Semitransgenic's attitude is 'my way or highway'. Recalling his bad attitude history, I think you're also getting an uncontrite, 'make me – I want it, and I want it now' attitude.
I therefore consense with your option of extending protection of the article. Milo 03:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

As I've already noted here and elsewhere, Milo has shown no interest whatsoever in addressing the content-related issues in this article over a period of nearly 2 years. The above supercilious attack on Semitransgenic is typical of his long-established pattern of tendentious editing and generally disruptive behaviour. I propose that we ignore Milo's continued provocative disruptions to the consensus-building process here, and simply open an RFC on his behaviour if he decides to continue along his present path - there is a wealth of evidence in his editing history to sustain such an approach. Milo is an abusive editor of the highest order, and corrective sanction from the WP community is IMHO long overdue. --Gene_poole (talk) 06:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of wealth, the news is that businesses small and large are collapsing in the US, and I have no reason to think that Australia is any different. Your financial services business has got to be hurting, with what, 7-15% gone out of the western industrial economies?

You can waste some of my time at an RFC, but I can waste a lot more of yours. Furthermore, I can turn an RFC on me into an RFC on you. You've been here during six years. You have created dozens of steamed opponents, and they have compiled lists of links to things you shouldn't have done, and to editors you shouldn't have harassed.

A good example of what will happen to you at my RFC is the go round we just had when you veered off-topic at Semitransgenic's article talk post deleting and 4RR edit warring. I didn't even work hard to come up with that list of bad-Gene links. I have a lot more links, but I didn't want to bore readers with too much response to your off-topic launch at me. That's typical of what happens every time you try to attack me. The user who questioned you at your Milo attack section watched you huff and puff at length, but didn't buy your empty stylistic claims.

You've already complained about being time-poor. It stands to reason that you need to spend a lot more time working at your business to avoid becoming money-poor as well. If you choose to lose time-is-money by wasting time in vainly trying to make me look bad, then you aren't as financially disciplined as I've always assumed you to be. Old age is closing in faster than you think. I suggest that you work steadily while you still can. Milo 13:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Milo, please refrain from making personal attacks, it's not a constructive way forward and it simply displays bad faith on your behalf. All I can say is that if you view the process of engaging the wider community - in order to discuss the validity of a source - as some how unacceptable I question why you are participating here. Consensus building incorporates features such as WP:RSN, why do you view this as me evidencing a "my way or the highway" attitude? You clearly state above that the status of the source needs to be addressed, however considering the contention here it's best to engage others in this process. Semitransgenic (talk) 11:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I deny the strawman fallacy on which your post is based.

You may not like my description of your behavior, but if I have reasonable evidence for believing it to be true, and if I say it with civil language, then it is not considered to be a WP:NPA personal attack. Milo 13:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Gene, at this point an RFC may be premature, we can run with WP:RSN and see what the concensus is on the source, it may well be deemed accepable, at this point we don't know, so let's hear what others have to offer. Semitransgenic (talk) 11:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Milo has been posting poisonous unfounded personal attacks and tendentious, assumptive, condescending, delusional rants such as those immediately above for almost 2 years - and I'm a long way from being his only victim. He has been given literally dozens of opportunities to modify his behaviour and comply with content and behaviour policies that most 5 year-olds can grasp - yet either will not or cannot do so. In my opinion his contemptuous abuse of other editors' good faith attempts at working with him, and the almost constant disruption he causes to the project far outweigh any useful contribution he might have incidentally made along the way. When it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's quite frequently a duck - and in this case the duck is long overdue for a serious plucking.

By all means let's continue the attempt to deal with the WP:OWN and content-related issues here by inviting univolved editors to share their views - but we should do so accepting that Milomedes has no interest in the achievement of any "consensus" that isn't in lock-step with his WP:POV - and be prepared to deal with the likely consequences via the appropriate channels - swiftly and brutally. --Gene_poole (talk) 13:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Gene, Milo, can you guys relax, continuing to deal with each others short comings, rather the short comings of the the article, will just drag this on interminably. Yes, throwing mud is fun, but it's not going to get us anywhere. Semitransgenic (talk) 15:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we can all see who is relaxed - and who is not - around here. --Gene_poole (talk) 16:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Gene! it has to stop somewhere.Let's just focus on the content. OK? Semitransgenic (talk) 16:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I've been focused on the content of this article for almost two years. That's not going to change. --Gene_poole (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Great! let's try and hammer this thing out then while keeping WP:IAD in mind. Semitransgenic (talk) 17:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Editing

Hi Milo, to be honest, what you think of me, or my behavior, is irrelevant, and suggesting that an editors history indicates that they have bad intentions is not WP:AGF, and is again counterproductive. You are out of line here and are verging on WP:POINT, but please, feel free to drudge up whatever you require to continue your bad faith. Personally, I would rather see you deal with the outstanding issues regarding content. Can you please offer something positive here instead of shooting everything down? Semitransgenic (talk) 14:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

"to be honest"

Oh, were you being dishonest before now?

"suggesting that an editors history indicates that they have bad intentions is not WP:AGF"

I didn't do that. And no matter your good intentions, AGF is not a defense against persistent bad behavior.

"what you think of me, or my behavior, is irrelevant"

Reality check: What I think of your behavior is clearly relevant to you. In case you hadn't noticed, you now have a record as a WP:3RR edit warrior. And that's in addition to your previous record of WP:NPA bad behavior referenced at the top of the 4RR complaint linked above. If you persist with more bad behavior, I'll make another issue of it.

"I would rather see you deal with the outstanding issues regarding content."

My, how quickly we forget that you deleted eight of my content-focused posts during your WP:OWNed-formatting fit of pique. That's at least a candidate for a post-deleting record at Wikipedia, and I don't see your apology for that outrageous behavior.

"Can you please offer something positive here instead of shooting everything down?"

You shot down my proposal of Milo (00:59): "...cooling off period, then discuss ways to avoid another talk page edit war", responding with Semitransgenic (01:25): "...do not agree..."

What positive content offer did I shoot down? Milo 00:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Milo, freedom to disagree is a right, not a privilege, you suggested a discussion relating to HOS, I would rather rectify the many WP:OR errors that exist in this article by focusing on the content point for point. Verifying the status of HOS will not magic all of the problems away. However, I apologize for behaving belligerently, I was genuinely trying to keep the discussion focused to avoid extended debate over matters that have been trudged over endlessly; but to no avail. I appreciate that you may find my approach disagreeable, but a little bit of let up on your side of the fence could go a long way here. Perhaps we should try WP:FORG and see where it takes us? Finally, can you let us know exactly what your position is regarding this article and what ideas you have for improving it? Semitransgenic (talk) 01:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

May I remind everyone here of WP:CIV? 89.243.56.221 (talk) 19:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• I strongly recommend that editors here ask the WP:MEDCAB for help. Informal mediation could reduce the tensions here and help channel energy back into improving the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• • Done. The more outside opinions we have here, the better, in my opinion. --Gene_poole (talk) 01:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Paradigm shifting space music and spacemusic

Copied from #Editing "...can you let us know exactly what your position is regarding this article and what ideas you have for improving it?" Semitransgenic 01:23, 13 November 2008

Space music is the crown jewel of the popular music article trilogy consisting of New Age music, Ambient music, and Space music. It is the crown jewel because of the larger amount of research and other efforts that have gone into writing, referencing, and debating it, compared with the other two articles. This is a mature article that is perhaps 90%+ as good as it can be, with maximal use of the current set of scarce citations, as expressed through its current design paradigm.

At Wikipedia, controversial articles are edited in cycles. That means that under the current paradigm, Space music can only be expected to get worse, at least in the sense of having fewer citations. But any references removed this year are likely to be restored with the same or similar ones next year, ad nauseum. That's a continual big waste of editing effort.

An alternative to controversy-cycling the article is to shift the paradigm around which it is designed in the first five words:

"Space music, also spelled spacemusic..."

Space music (two words) is symbolically a transitional offspring of spacemusic (one word), leading to ambient music. This is an evolutionary branch unrecognized by the current paradigm.

The original USA Hill-Turner spacemusic radio history (1973-1983 onward), is isolated from its descendants: USA and European space music album history (1983-1989 onward), whose cousin is early UK Brian Eno ambient background music (1978-1988), whose descendants are UK Jimmy Cauty's local Space album that fomented absorption of Euro space music into the multi-ambient catchall (1989- 1995 peak -1999), followed by post-ambient consolidation (2000-onward). (all details subject to revision)

The current paradigm results in editors outside the USA feeling that something must be wrong with the article because it doesn't match their experience. Usually they've never heard of the Hearts of Space radio show, they don't understand how important it is compared to rival shows in the USA (at the peak, HoS was on 300 public radio stations on a scale of 500), and they may not understand how a mere radio show could have founded and defined a genre (of genres). That has happened at least twice in the USA due to the historically large number of non-government radio stations compared to Europe.

An analogy is to North American football which is rarely played in the rest of the world. Even the English word "football" means "soccer" outside the USA. It's confusing as "soccer" becomes important in the USA while "football" is being media-reported to the rest of the English-speaking world, yet non-USA fans must look up "soccer" to find the status of some, but not other "football" games played in the USA.

A new article paradigm could separate and track the divergent histories of the two spellings of space music/spacemusic, and the two sets of contemplative genre-of-genre founders, Hill-Turner and Eno-Cauty. In the process, it could describe controversies that arose when European album space music more or less merged with Eno-founded background ambient music, and morphed to second generation multi-ambient music after 1989 – but was less influential in the USA where HoS remained the classic source of radio spacemusic. This means reviewers outside of the USA often don't use the same terms to describe the same music albums as USA music reviewers do. USA reviewers are heavily exposed to radio spacemusic on HoS, which is subtly different from album space music, which is subtly different still from album ambient music. Milo 10:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Or, to paraphrase...

Q What is your position regarding this article?

A It's just fine as it is.

Q What ideas do you have for improving it?

A None. If you disagree with the content of "my" Space music article, create your own POV fork called Spacemusic.

I don't think so. --Gene_poole (talk) 12:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Milo, I'm sorry, I don't wish to labour the point, but unless you have a secondary source that corroborates the thesis you present above it simply cannot be presented as the focus of an article, whether it be 'space music' or 'spacemusic', to do so would be WP:OR.

This is your personal assessment and represents a particular point of view.

The following from WP:VER is very specific: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.

I am challenging what is presented here becasue it is not verifiable, however, contrary to what you suggest, there are a number of verifiable sources available that can be used to substantiate the content of a less biased article.

Finally, I have no wish to get sucked into a musicological debate but one point worth considering is that your characterisation of Eno's work as background ambient music is inaccurate, Eno states "...immersion was really the point, we were making music to swim in, to float in, to get lost inside. This became clear to me when I was confined to bed, immobilized by an accident in early 1975" (Cox & Warner:2004:94-97).

Your thesis also completely ignores the French and French Canadian acousmatic tradition which has a central preoccupation with space, the manipulation of sound in space, and the spatial experience of sound. You are also ignoring the contributions of Pauline Oliveros and her deep listening music, minimalist drone based work such as that produced by La Monte Young, and the concept of immersive music in general; which dates back to at least Adrian Willaert - of course we can stretch back to our cave dwelling ancestors who arguably ustilised the acoustic properties of their living environment to great effect: possibly why much of the space music you refer to is drenched in reverb.

We should also note that there is no mention of Henry Brant or of Edgar Varese - the man how first articulated the notion of 'spatial music'.

In summary, please don't think you are presenting the bigger picture when you are only just scratching the surface. Semitransgenic (talk) 14:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

"the thesis you present above it simply cannot be presented as the focus of an article,"

How do you know that until its been researched?

A paradigm shift begins a new story that explains all the old facts, plus new facts that the old story can't explain. (See Paradigm shift#Other uses.)

For example, a hypothetical editor might be able to write an article, based on technically reliable ancient sources which assert that the sun revolves around the earth – a paradigm story from ancient observations. What stops such an article from actually being written is that a second editor knows a sun-centered paradigm story and looks for sources to verify it. Until hearing the new paradigm story, the first editor didn't know the potential for finding other sources, and so didn't look.

Likewise, you're stuck in the old paradigm, and so aren't looking for new sources that might support a new paradigm.

Now here's the ironic part: you're stuck in a paradigm that I helped create. You showed up on Nov 7, and accepted our old paradigm as holy writ because we transubstantiated it into a Mediawiki page.

"...please don't think you are presenting the bigger picture when you are only just scratching the surface."

You're embarrassing yourself by making statements about things you don't quite understand. I suggest that you go back to asking questions.

"I have no wish to get sucked into a musicological debate"

Then you shouldn't have made a challengable musicological statement in a musicology debate section.

"characterisation of Eno's work as background ambient music is inaccurate"

You seem to be having a reading comprehension problem again, but this time not of my writing. By a further reading of your own citation:

Cox & Warner, Audio Culture, 2004, p.95-96: Eno: "It was raining hard outside and I could hardly hear the music above the rain—just the loudest notes, like little crystals, sonic icebergs rising out of the storm."

– In other words, Eno discovered it in the background, just barely above the noise. In 1978 he branded it "Ambient Music" in the following manifesto written on the inner sleeve of Music for Airports:

Ibid, p.96: Eno: "The concept of music designed specifically as a background feature in the environment was pioneered by Muzak, Inc. in the fifties..."

– Eno's Music for Airports was an improved version of the same background music concept.

Ibid, p.97: Eno: "Whereas conventional background music is produce by stripping away ... Ambient Music retains these qualities."

– Therefore, 1978 Ambient Music is unconventional background music.

"Your thesis also completely ignores..."

The new paradigm story is about the origins of two niche but popular musics, not previously explained by the article's old paradigm. I'll defer a conclusion, but of the contributions you mention, my impression is that of non-popular sidebars or perhaps contributions retro to Eno. Even if they are relevant to the new paradigm, they seem unnecessary to explain it.

"we can stretch back to our cave dwelling ancestors"

The article had a quality ancient influences section which was vetoed by another editor. Contrary to your politically motivated charges of WP:OWN, a third editor and I accepted this veto as a matter of collegiality, even though we completely disagreed with it.

"possibly why much of the space music you refer to is drenched in reverb."

Prominent reverb was at least a feature of the spacemusic-associated announcing breaks during Hill and Turner's original 1973-1983 Music From The Hearts Of Space, on KPFA. Milo 13:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Good luck with that, pity it's WP:OR. Semitransgenic (talk) 16:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources Noticeboard posting

Since the preliminary discussions and position statements seem to have concluded, I agree with the request at #Discussion: The source status of Hearts of Space about the need for a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Music genre cofounder and website.
I said I was wasn't sure I understood the position that I described as the reason for making the posting, but other editors here will be able to clarify it. Milo 16:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion copied from WP Reliable Sources Noticeboard

This RS question is whether Stephen Hill, the cofounder of a notable niche music genre, "spacemusic", can be disqualified as a secondary source expert, and have his radio production company's website (= expert's book) reclassified with primary source usage restrictions (results in removal).

The radio production company is Hearts of Space established 25 years ago (35 including the original Music From the Hearts of Space show on KPFA). HoS was historically played on more than 250 USA public radio stations on a scale of 500. This 2004-01-11 San Francisco Chronicle description of Stephen Hill's expertise reads:
"Hill, who coined the term "spacemusic" more than 20 years ago, hosts the "Music From the Hearts of Space" music program, syndicated on 250 National Public Radio stations, including San Francisco's KALW 91.7 FM, which airs two hours of the program at 10 p.m. Sundays. In addition, Hill's Hearts of Space Web site (www.hos.com) provides streaming access to an archive of hundreds of hours of spacemusic artfully blended into one-hour programs combining ambient, electronic, world, New Age and classical music."

The claim as I understand it (maybe I don't), is that a justified primary source reclassification, along with other sources properly reclassified as primary, would cause a synthesis/OR violation in the article titled Space music. The further result would be that the cofounder's detailed analysis, opinions, and other website information would be mostly removed from the article about the genre he cofounded.

The campaigning editor says his most contentious objection is that the name of the genre is a "commercial entity's branding drive". Presumably, he objects strongly to a previously unnoticed form of commercial spam in the Wikipedia article, and a great wrong should be righted by minimizing it. If I correctly understand it, I can only describe this position as extremist.

Spacemusic genre is a case of limited circle fame. Its current USA public radio fans are thinly scattered, but dedicated to its support through public radio fund drives. Its niche music sales amount to less than 1% of the commercial market, so very little is written about spacemusic in major USA music publications dependent on commercial advertising.

(The rest of the 102 Space music sources to be considered for reclassification as primary, and then removed for synthesis/OR, should be handled separately to avoid noticeboard overload.)
Milo 15:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I suppose all this would give some reason for caution in using these sources, and particularly a reason to be careful to try to double-source things and to give all sides where sources disagree, but it sounds to me like Hill would be a perfectly reasonable source. Where he is writing about his own work in fostering the genre, or about his own show, he's primary. Where he's writing about the musicians in the genre, it would seem to me that he is secondary, just like any music critic. - Jmabel | Talk 17:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jmabel on all three points - multiple sources are always recommended when there are differing published views on a topic. On the primary/secondary question - Hill would be a primary source when writing about himself and his own radio show. On third-party topics such as music styles, record albums, musicians, the radio and music business, etc, he'd be a secondary source. I'd say that within his area of expertise, there's no reason not to use his work as a reliable source. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear about the encyclopedia-margins deletionist effect of what you are both saying:

Stephen Hill and his Hearts of Space website were previously treated as expert-based secondary sources via WP:V(WP:SPS). The Wikipedia art/music reasoning has previously been that the founder of an art/music genre knows subjectively more about what he/she created than anyone else as a matter of expert opinion. You are changing that.

What a secondary source says can be combined in a point-by-point source-provable editorial analysis. In this case, since there are so few other mainstream sources, many or most of them are presently combined with Hill's previous secondary source expertise to write the article.

But a primary source has fewer rights in an article than a secondary source. What a primary source says cannot be combined with other sources for a standard article editorial analysis, even if every point made by article editors can be proved through analysis of the primary sources.

Art/music experts normally have secondary source rights under WP:V(WP:SPS). You are now removing Hill's secondary source rights, so you are in effect declaring that he is not an expert on the genre he founded. (Yes, you deny that, but the denial is cosmetic.) Since he is no longer an expert on his own work, his dominant presence in an article about his own creations constitutes undue weight, which can be removed by his opponents (and as already declared, will be removed by the campaigning editor).

The big names in creativity won't be affected at Wikipedia, but if one's creative work is notable, yet limited circle famous with few mainstream sources, this appears to be a significant deletionist change at the margins of Wikipedia. The effect is that a marginal creator's expertise is henceforth trumped by a marginal rival's expertise. I assume that hundreds of articles will eventually be affected as the art/music opponent class finds out they can now marginalize their rivals by de-experting and de-weighting them through primary sourcing.

Are you sure you want to go there? Milo 00:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not at all what I meant. I'm surprised you interpreted it that way, did I write so unclearly? I do not see any problem using Hill as a reliable source for the music article noted above. He is a primary source only about the events he observes in and about his personal life, like when someone writes an autobiography. I would consider him to be a reliable secondary source for his writings about music, including the topic of the article in question. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

(Roe 03:05): "did I write so unclearly?"

What you wrote first was (Roe 20:14): "Hill would be a primary source when writing about himself and his own radio show..." and "...within his area of expertise, there's no reason not to use his work as a reliable source."

There's a contradictory overlap between those two statements. Since the "spacemusic" genre-of-genres is mostly defined by his radio show, your 20:14 statement causes Hill to be mostly removed from the genre article due to a newly-defined lack of secondary source expertise about his own radio show (using the Milo 00:49 reasoning above).

What you wrote second was (Roe 03:05): "He is a primary source only about the events he observes in and about his personal life, like when someone writes an autobiography."

Ok, that works if we define "personal life" as those factors having an insubstantial connection to Hill's notable creative work.

(Roe 03:05): "I do not see any problem using Hill as a reliable source for the music article noted above." ... "I would consider him to be a reliable secondary source for his writings about music, including the topic of the article in question."

Reliable secondary source creative expertise includes more than writings. The campaigning editor has made an issue out of Hill's verbally broad definition of the "spacemusic" genre-of-genres, which includes segue assemblies of certain slow-paced contemplative pieces found within up to 30 standard genres. The only exact definition of "spacemusic" is the collective example of 850+ archived shows created by Hill's expertise, along with his late cofounder Anna Turner and his production associates.

Per the top question, does Hill's reliable secondary source expertise also cover his HoS.com website that may include publishing the writings of others? Hos.com holds the 850+, 25-year Hearts of Space radio show archive, and its historic playlist server is used to help determine the notability of "spacemusic" genre-of-genre artists. Is HoS.com, a reliable secondary source? Milo 07:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, maybe the way I wrote my first reply there could have been some ambiguity, so I have gone back and modified it to change an "and" to a period, to better split the two separate ideas I was noting. I hope that makes it more clear. As I've tried to say, my view is that Hill is a notable expert and reliable source. I would apply that to his writings and radio show including its website, archives and playlists. I re-read the spacemusic article tonight and I don't see any problem with the way Hill or his radio program are referenced in the article. I'm basing that view on what I've learned about Hill and the radio show since this inquiry was posted, and on my understanding of the policies. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 12:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that "space music" is not a musical genre and Hearts of Space did not invent it. The term existed for decades before the 1970s - and particularly in Europe has a very specific association with Kosmische musik - and not the sort of contemplative music broadcast by Hearts of Space in the United States. None of this is currently appropriately weighted within the article - which overabundantly relies on HOS as a primary source.

In the context of the Hearts of Space radio show, "space music" is merely the catch-all marketing term uniquely applied by the show's producers to all of the broadly low-key, relaxational, contemplative music which they typically broadcast - irrespective of genre; much of it is ambient, New Age or electronic, and the rest rest is classical, cool jazz, celtic, world or contemporary instrumental music.

It is important to note that while many other radio programmers, music retailers and music reviewers also make use of the term "space music" - none of them use it in the same over-arching manner that HOS does.

The suggestion that "space music" is 'exactly defined' by a set of playlists from a single radio show (HOS) is not only original research, for which no citable sources exist - it is complete raving nonsense. Musical genres are defined by characteristics inherent to the form and structure of music itself; they are not simply conjured out of thin air by radio producers.

A piece of classical music by Arvo Part does not suddenly, inexplicably instead become part of a genre called "space music" simply because it got played on the Hearts of Space show. A jazz piece by Jan Garbarek does not suddenly, inexplicably instead become part of a genre called "space music" simply because it got played on the Hearts of Space show. A piece of celtic-inspired music by Clannad does does not suddenly, inexplicably instead become part of a genre called "space music" simply because it got played on the Hearts of Space show.

Thus, while the HOS website is a reliable primary source for data about the radio show, the various musical genres from which it's producers draw, and the producers' opinions and philosophical approach to music - it is not and cannot be the sole primary source for the entire article subject - which should properly be about a lot more than merely the self-descriptive terminology one radio show uses to broadly characterise its "sound" - further to which it is entirely inappropriate to liberally cite the show's playlists throughout the article as if the mere fact of doing so "proves" that "every piece of music that's ever been played on Hearts of Space is part of a musical genre called 'space music' ".

Such an asertion is specious and misleading, and it - and any variations of it - simply cannot be insinuated into the WP article on this subject. --Gene_poole (talk) 15:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

When there are multiple reliable sources that disagree, that does not change the reliability of each individual source. In that kind of situation it's important to mention the various viewpoints and not focus only on one, as noted in the neutral point of view policy. Attribution can help to provide context between multiple reliable sources that differ. That said, most of the above discussion describes an editorial content dispute, not a question of determining whether or not a particular source is reliable. This noticeboard is not the appropriate forum for resolving complex editorial matters. For that there are various options of dispute resolution available that may be able to help, such as article request for comments. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

IMO the validity of Hearts of Space as a primary source is not a matter of dispute - although one other editor has disagreed - hence the need to gain clarification via this discussion. The article's broader issues are certainly content and policy-related, as you correctly point out. The article currently lends undue weight to the primary source; it does so by synthesising an original research theory - largely from the fallacious interpretation of multiple citations drawn from the primary source. Informal dispute resolution has already been initiated with the intention of addressing the longstanding opposition to the rectification of these issues. --Gene_poole (talk) 00:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's be clear that Hill has significant commercial interests and arguably has a vested interest in seeing that this label is utilised as a branding device. Hill has published nothing on this subject but we do have verifiable secondary sources that discuss the topic, notably Lanza who offers a view regarding Hill and the space music domian in general - in the context of the subject as it is expressed in the current space music article. The statement above Hill, who coined the term "spacemusic" more than 20 years ago is misleading, not verifiable, and is in actuality false.Be aware also that a number of the cited sources contradict themselves - swinging from 'space-music' as genre descriptor to 'space music' as category of musics. Hill states that all music played on his program, irrespective of era, ethnic origin, or extant definitions, is 'space music' (ranging from Haydn to Yanni), this statement is backed up by nothing other than the brief statements on the Hearts of Space website, it's a deeply personal view. In terms of offering a qualified secondary perspective on this, Lanza, the musicologist, is the best bet, not the radio producer and record label boss. Also, note that a number of the statements attributed to various cited sources are synthetic, the first two sentences in the lede being the most problematic. Semitransgenic (talk) 09:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

What is your source for making the claim of, "The statement above [quote from 2004-01-11 San Francisco Chronicle ] ... not verifiable, and is in actuality false." ?

If you think the statement is not verifiable, how do you know it's actually false?

Since they already verified it, are you seriously claiming that The San Francisco Chronicle is not a reliable source??

If you are challenging the San Francisco Chronicle's reporting of the facts, what is your evidence to the contrary?

If the San Francisco Chronicle's source on the quote is Stephen Hill himself (reporter Sande can be asked), and you can't prove the statement is incorrect exactly as written and spelled, then you have potentially committed libel per quod - potentially a covert defamation of Hill's veracity and professional expertise. If so, it's also a WP:BLP-talk violation, and you could be required to retract the statement.

So how do you explain your self-contradictory and worrisome comment? Milo 09:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The SF Chronicle article cited above is entitled "The sky's the limit with ambient music". The article's opening paragraph states "spacemusic, also known as ambient...". The article goes on to note "a prime mover in the ambient/spacemusic genre...", and "the best description of what we do is contemplative music". This does not support your WP:OR theory that spacemusic and ambient are somehow different genres, and that Stephen Hill invented spacemusic. The assertion that Stephen Hill invented the term spacemusic 20 years ago is clearly false, as numerous other sources already cited in the Spacemusic article confirm that it was in use by others at least 20 years before Hill started using it - as you should know, given that you added those sources yourself. All the other statements in the SF Chronicle article are not false. Your highly selective synthetic interpretation of them is false. --Gene_poole (talk) 12:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, to clarify, what I should have said is that Hill did not coin the term space music almost 20 years ago; therefore the journalist writing for the SFC, is wrong. The relevant literature does not support the thesis Milo is presenting, but that is not the even the point, the point is the article is breaching guidelines on WP:OR and this will be evident to anyone who cross checks the content against the cited material. Semitransgenic (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

You struck one problem claim, ok, but your more dangerous claim of "is in actuality false" still stands. Therefore you are still at the previously stated potential risk of libel per quod and a WP:BLP-talk violation for the post of Semitransgenic (09:44).

Semitransgenic (22:44): "should have said is that Hill did not coin the term space music almost 20 years ago; therefore the journalist writing for the SFC, is wrong."

A further self-contradiction. We agree that the term "space music" (two words in English) was a term in use for other kinds of music prior to 1973. But SFC reported that Hill "coined the term "spacemusic"", and exclusively used that term spelled "spacemusic" (one word in English) throughout the article.

A reminder that you were the one to raise the issue of branding: ""Any music with a generally slow pace and space-creating sound image can be called spacemusic", this is actually a commercial entity's branding drive,..." Semitransgenic 00:39, 8 November 2008.

If you can't prove SFC's statement is wrong, exactly as "spacemusic" is spelled (one word), and Hill is SFC's source for the statement, then you are now potentially facing a second count of libel per quod and a WP:BLP-talk violation for the post of Semitransgenic (22:44).

You are still challenging the San Francisco Chronicle's reliable reporting of the facts – what is your evidence to the contrary? Milo 03:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Libel?? LOL : ) yawn...you are a dreamer. Yes the SFC is wrong, Newspapers are often wrong, about lots of things, often intentionally so. And yes, I do have evidence. Fact check: The term 'space music' was in existence long before Hill coined it. But, this is not a forum, nor is it the place to discuss content disputes so let me reiterate: "the point is the article is breaching guidelines on WP:OR and this will be evident to anyone who cross checks the content against the cited material." please deal with this fact Milo rather than attacking editors who disagree with your views. Semitransgenic (talk) 13:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

←Let the record show:

1. Semitransgenic refuses to discuss the distinction between the two spellings "spacemusic"/"space music". For brands, a minor spelling difference greatly matters, and he originally claimed that "spacemusic" (one word in English) was a "branding drive"[1].
2. Yet, he has persistently challenged the San Francisco Chronicle's fact reporting reliability, apparently based on his self-contradictory implication, that "spacemusic" (one word) is not different from "space music" (two words), and therefore "spacemusic" can't be a brand of "space music". He wants to have it both ways.
3. He has presented no valid evidence that the San Francisco Chronicle article's reporting by Sande is unreliable or excludable from citation. He doesn't agree with it, but asked twice, he can't say why without either generalizing or contradicting himself.
4. He treats concerns about libels that might ruin other people's reputations as a joke.

This thread was again and again bloated with claims about non-sourcing issues. Since they were off-topic at this noticeboard, I ignored them. Now Semitransgenic yawns and claims to be attacked. Experienced editors will recognize these distractive ploys that herald a thread to be ended by gainsaying last-worders.

To summarize from the top post:

This RS question is whether Stephen Hill, the cofounder of a notable niche music genre, "spacemusic", can be disqualified as a secondary source expert, and have his radio production company's website (= expert's book) reclassified with primary source usage restrictions (results in removal).

The RS answers are:

• Stephen Hill is a notable expert as described under WP:V(WP:SPS). Hill's reliable secondary source expertise covers his writings and radio show including its website, archives and playlists.
• Hill's comments on his personal life, meaning those factors having an insubstantial connection to Hill's notable creative work, are reliable primary sources.
• Additionally, the 2004-01-11 San Francisco Chronicle article by Steve Sande, quoting Stephen Hill and others with analysis of this music, is an article that can be cited as a reliable source.

Milo 03:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Milo, you are very confused, read the article, read what you have written in the article, you interchange space-music and spacemusic throughout, but now, because the flimsy tissue of lies that you call one of your lifetime best pieces of analysis (what??) is disintegrating, you want to reconstitute definitions so they substantiate your diabolical delusions. Yes, yawn, it's boring, tiresome, and your lecturing and educating is really quite patronising, so please, stop, we have all had quite enough. So for the last time, let me get this across to you: your WP:POV, WP:SYN, WP:OR thesis is indefensible, and this is something you should come to terms with. Semitransgenic (talk) 10:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I contributed to, but mostly did not write the current article. It was not my decision to interchange "space music" and "spacemusic", but for consensus I let it pass. The version of the article I referred to at that link was deleted by another editor long ago. I was gracious about it since I wanted to collaborate to produce a better article. Milo 12:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

But Milo, in this very declaration you refer to space music?? so do please forgive me for finding this inconsistent of you. It all seems rather disingenuous and we would be better served here if you stopped entertaining yourself at our expense and instead made a genuine effort in resolving this matter. Semitransgenic (talk) 13:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It's an obscured research issue embedded in the second paragraph (Milo 07:04, 21 February 2007): "... points that seem most important. First is the issue of Hill-Turner space music versus other kinds,...". "Spacemusic" and "space music" sound about the same on radio, so I wrote it down as two words. I expect others did the same. Milo 00:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

"obscured research issue"? you mean WP:OR. Sorry but this is again disingenuous. You say you heard the term on the radio and wrote it down as two words yet your first major contribution to the article demonstrates you had knowledge of the Hearts of Space website so were very clear on the issue - as posited by Hill - but you still explicitly use the term Space music throughout. Semitransgenic (talk) 16:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

""obscured research issue"? you mean WP:OR."

Lose the sophistry.

"were very clear on the issue - as posited by Hill"

No. Hill didn't discuss his "spacemusic" spelling on the website. Creative spellings are routine in popular music "biz" writing, so I didn't notice until it emerged as a research issue during 2007. Milo 22:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Therefore: the SFC is wrong. Thanks for confirming this. Semitransgenic (talk) 22:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't follow. Hill didn't discuss his "spacemusic" spelling. "Discuss" means "b: to present in detail for examination or consideration" (M-W.com). Not discussed doesn't imply that "spacemusic" isn't mentioned by that spelling. My recent search of HoS.com displayed 155 hits on "spacemusic" (one word) and 11 hits on "space music" (two words). The 11 hits on the two word spelling appear to be quotations including album titles.

The earliest preserved, dated usage of the "spacemusic" spelling is the HoS website's intro announcement for Hearts of Space radio program #003 of 1983-01-12. That's consistent with the 2004-01-11 SFC report statement reading: "Hill, who coined the term "spacemusic" more than 20 years ago,...". Milo 05:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but you are insinuating that Hill's neologism - following the transference of a contraction into a compound word - makes him the co-founder of a genre but space-music and spacemusic refer to exactly the same thing - in the same way that space-craft & spacecraft mean exactly the same thing; yet the person responsible for compounding the words space & craft is not credited with being a co-conceptualizer of space-travel. I recommend you look at the Oxford English Dictionary online under space and count the number of times you find similar examples. Also, note that the very book Hill cites as "the best general treatment of the subject" does not mention spacemusic - nor is there mention of this in the books precursor, David Toop's Ocean of Sound (nor does it feature in Timothy Dean Taylor's book Strange Sound which includes a chapter entitled Space). There are, from what I can see, only two published secondary sources that mention spacemusic/space music directly (in keeping with how article wishes to define itself) that's Lanza and Birosik: and note that Hill's partner and co-founder of Music from the Hearts of Space, Anna Turner, in Birosik, uses the term space music, and not spacemusic. It's clear that spacemusic and space music are one and the same thing so you need to stop with all this nonsense about Hill being the creator of a genre, or even genre of genres for that matter. Semitransgenic (talk) 13:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

To try and put to rest the matter of who might have coined the word spacemusic, the earliest reference I can find for the term is 1963. It's the title of an orchestral work by an American composer called Donald Erb, you'll find confirmation of this on p. 129 of E. Ruth Andersons Contemporary American Composers. There is also an occurrence of spacemusic in the poetry of Adrian Henry prior to 1985. Semitransgenic (talk) 16:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I hesitate to add to this already enormous discussion, but the New Grove article on Erb says this piece was composed in 1962, the work is for wind band, not orchestra, and the publisher, Theodore Presser, gives the title as two words, not one: Space Music by Donald Erb. Presumably, the point at issue here is the use of the term as a single word, but there is at least one earlier use of the two-word form in English, as cited in the OED: a 1961 Musical Quarterly review of Carré for four choirs and orchestras by Stockhausen.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jerome, thanks for the added info, yes it's the single word that was a bone of contention, Milo believes there is a clear distinction, a paradigm shifting distinction!! : ) I saw the Anderson snippet on google books, then checked the compendium to get more details, she has it entered as an orchestral work, unless I've missed something. Semitransgenic (talk) 21:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Anderson may well say it is for orchestra, I have no reason to doubt you. New Grove says it is for band, and the complete instrumentation (from the Presser website linked above) is Piccolo, Flute I, Flute II, Oboe, Clarinet I, Clarinet II, Clarinet III, Alto Clarinet, Bass Clarinet, Bassoon, Alto Saxophone I, Alto Saxophone II, Tenor Saxophone I, Tenor Saxophone II, Baritone Saxophone, Trumpet I, Trumpet II, Trumpet III, Horn I, Horn II, Horn III, Horn IV, Tenor I, Tenor II, Tenor III, Baritone, Treble, Baritone, Bass, Contrabass, Piano, Timpani, Percussion I, Percussion II, Percussion III. Since there are no strings, I don't think it can be regarded as for orchestra. This is not really relevant to the discussion, however, some of which I notice seems to hold that there is no substantive difference between the two-word form (whether hyphenated or not) and the one-word version.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

not relevant but worth noting, next time I'll go straight to 'New Grove' for info like this. Yes, the gist of the discussion was as you state. Semitransgenic (talk) 23:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Martian Child

In the film Martian Child, I'm pretty sure space music was used. I could be wrong; can anyone confirm and add to the list? —C Teng^(talk) 16:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Space_Music.! New age.? Or.. maybe not -- as it can even be "old"age style of analogue" via a specific type of remastering technique.

Um.. Try these "special" TAGS.. for an amzingly fanstastical result.

Ethereal Surreal Gothic Analogue Floating Surround Sound Echoes

One video -- on youtube.. (can be accessed directly via those tags): One -- of many videos there.. on a particular youtube ch.. (&) OMG -- it's mine: ?http(colon)//www(DOHT)youtube(DOHT)com/watch?v=z7_vwfkifW

Just done- by using a 1965 "OLD SKOOL" .. analogue remastering technique.? Perfected.. as it always has been done.. via the oldest of OLD "methods". (inside, through, across & of - a simple 2ch "analogue" tape Re-recording).

Thus.. maybe -?- When someone .. doesn't quite understand "the spaciousness.. (of multiple ch analogue surround sound)

They write of "space-age" gothic music .. in ONLY the mdern conceptys of this effect.

One - would.. thus have (then) incorrectly assumed That .. SPACE "age" music.. is to be ONLY "found" be of an electronic adaptation (in a fully digital "electronic" format).

Whereas - the reverse (& literally -YES- in REVERSE too) .. "is" the truer form. QUIX4U (talk) 04:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: In the further notes section .. there is mention .. that there IS NO sound .. in space.! (RUBBISH) ..It has always been there..

Yes: OUND .. actually does EXIST in space.. Deep fringe areads.. of the furthermost parsts.. of the outer comos.. "all" have sound. Sound .. is that which is "created" by the shock waves.. arising between the infinitesimally smallest particles.. rubbing against any other.. AND.. to exist in deep space.. where there is "next to NO -- humanly usable atmosphere.. The "sound" must therefore BE -- at a significantly HIGHER position .. on the full electomechanical SOUND "frequency' spectrum .. than our earthly (heavy atmosphirically unbalanced ears) could ever hope to attain.. Which is exactly WHY -- we have eyes. THAT is the EASILY NOW HEARD "frequency" of SPACE NOISE.

LIGHT WAVES .. are just a much higher "frequency" rate of noise .. thatn low frequency .. human capable "accoustical sound .. we use -- through heavy thickened air.

Which- is EXACTLY what out creator told moses.. HE /she (THEY .. would communicate .. across timel;ess space. as they have always done.

I WILL SHINE A LIGHT.

It -- thus .. is simply the hmanoids responsibility.. to 'build" a receiver .. which decompiles the "highest light frequencies.. into HUMAN AUDIBLE SOUNDS.

Otherwise.. why on earth & in heaven .. would WE -- as Humans .. be able to "communicate" with other humans .. ON ANOTHER TERRESTRIAL BODY.. Via "sound" waves.. (Radio frequency waves.. that Neil Armstrong spoke to "houston" within)

Sound.. has always existed in SPACE..! It's just that daft humans .. haven't opened their minds.. to the full nuances.. of true accoustical sound pressure WAVE FORMS.. across the entire electromechanical spectrum. LIGHT-- is that sound evergy -- which easily penetrates deep space. Whereas .. lowest "reverb BASS tones.. tansmit themselves through solid walls .. where LIGHT cannot "travel". BUT -- sound .. in all of it's full electromechanical sense.. EXISTS - In or Out of "space" - period. QUIX4U (talk) 05:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

So... light is sound? Get mainstream physicists to publish that little tidbit before adding it to any articles, ok? LadyofShalott 03:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

References or lack of them thereof aside...

Would you consider music from the game SkyRoads to be spacecore? I really get the feeling of being in deep dark space when I play the game...mainly due to the music. 101.212.66.141 (talk) 11:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Props 4 Floyd

Seems like Richard Wright should be mentioned somewhere in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.47.189.1 (talk) 16:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Infobox music genre

I have added Template:Infobox music genre to this article. I have populated it with info from this article. Feel free to edit it for accuracy and to expand it with any other relevant info you may have. --Devin Murphy (talk) 19:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Much like the feelings the music inspires....

Pages like this really do a good job of reminding me how important it is to chill out. Because at the end of the day - you cannot fight back against this kind of stupid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.224.75.67 (talk) 23:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Finally...--78.51.101.65 (talk) 04:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

...a lemma we all can disagree on!

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Space music. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070608075415/http://blender.com/guide/articles.aspx?id=932 to http://www.blender.com/guide/articles.aspx?id=932

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Japan, Japan, Japan!!!

Love how Japan is included in the origin category while other countries are just ignored althogether despite mentioning in the article pioneers of different nationalities. If three czech pioneers do a novel thing, they are not mentioned, if a japanese does a thing even if it's later, it's mentioned and put in the "most influencial person of the century". English Wikipedia to me has some sort of japan bias, it's everywhere here. You can check for example how ignored a lot of countries are and focus on a bipolar Japanese-American world in most articles.

I guess it's normal when a big percentage of people in the english speaking world are attracted to Japan, if they are not straight up orientalists but come on.

I might sound like I have some sort of anti-japanese agenda here but I'm honestly just irritated by the rampant bias towards some countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirad1000 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 16 June 2022 (UTC)