Talk:Electroclash

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reconsider for deletion[edit]

I would like to elect that this entire article be reconsidered for deletion as it is polluted with grammatical and spelling errors together with a general theme of self promotion. Futhermore, is violates the MUSTARD standards in many areas.Lynnarmstrong 03:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your views of the current state of the article, however, I feel that deletion is not a proper solution. Electroclash is a legitimate genre of electronica, and it has grown well beyond it's beginnings with Larry Tee, something that this article does not adequately express. As an alternative to deletion, I propose a "soft reset", something like what Jimbo Wales did to the Sveasoft page here. -- Ryanfantastic 01:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup Request[edit]

This article is a clear violation of WP:VERIFY and possibly WP:NPOV. As such, I have added a cleanup request and a unreferenced template. Ryanfantastic 09:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I did some re-organizing of the article for flow and information content. If you don't like the changes, feel free to put it back the way it was. Robovski 22:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


This article borders on self-promotion/spam. Adjectives used by the author are those typically associated with "puffing" I am shocked that this article has made it past the deletion phase. It seems to me that certain record labels have promulgated these articles in the hope that this become more that what it factually is ... punk with electronica influences. Nothing more.Lynnarmstrong 03:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clean-up Representative Artists[edit]

The Representative Artists section is too large and has way too many red links. Therefore I removed the artists listed below. Some of these artists are clearly not representative of the Electroclash genre, and others have been removed due to a lack of a corresponding article for the artist/ensemble. If anyone objects, please make a comment here when you add the artist back.

More removals to come. If there is an interest in keeping such a large list of artists the should be listed on a List of Electroclash bands and artists page. - Ryanfantastic 00:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladytron have survived the 'Electroclash' period, and do not consider themselves to be electroclash (see various interviews, including those listed on the Independent newspaper website); I suggest keeping them as 'electronic,' so I suggest to remove them. Bulleid Pacific 17/11/06 

:did the list, and will add it to "See Also" Nnnudibranch 09:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nnnudibranch (talk • contribs)

First electroclash track?[edit]

The article says the first electroclash track is considered to be I-F - Space Invaders are Smoking Grass. The article says it's 1993, but that track was made in 1997. I'm correcting the article.

Does this still make it one of the first electroclash tracks?

Probably in the time sense considering electroclash was mostly started around the end of the 90s, although I personally consider it to be nu electro--Reubot 07:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, nu-electro tracks enriched with witty vocoder-driven vocals such as for example by Anthony Rother directly preceded the Cambrian explosion of Electroclash towards the end of the 90s. --Rio65trio (talk) 16:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added information on some other early electroclash tracks (Chris Korda's Save the Planet, Kill Yourself of 1993 and Christopher Just's I'm a Disco Dancer of 1997). Another club hit of 1997 was DJ Naughty's Gigolo Style. This track was repeatedly mixed by Sven Väth into I-F's Space Invaders are Smoking Grass, listen and you will understand why. By the way, Hell's For your Love and the Suicide Commando remix of 1998 are other suitable tools in this regard. --Rio65trio (talk) 02:04, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The two electroclash hits by Miss Kittin & The Hacker of 1998 which I added, "1982" and "Frank Sinatra", you can find them here: 1982 and here: Frank Sinatra. --Rio65trio (talk) 01:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

False Information[edit]

This author of this article has no idea what they are talking about. The Genre of Music described is called Elektro, it was born out of electroclash but is now definitely a new genre. And lastly BANG GANG IS NOT DEAD. 14:15, 10 November 2006 220.101.83.182

No, this is electro. Unless you are thinking of electro house, which has its own article. --Reubot 14:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other Important Influences[edit]

List of artists moved[edit]

Seeing as the list of artists was quite substantial and contained entirely blue links, I've moved it to a separate stand-alone list article at List of electroclash artists. Guidelines do suggest that embedded lists should generally be avoided. - Zeibura Talk 00:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's deleted? I made a new one, then saw this post.. I guess I'll just have to see how it holds up. Nnnudibranch 09:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nnnudibranch (talk • contribs)

Themes section[edit]

The first paragraph of the Themes section should not be a link, but I find it waaay too funny to even consider removing it. Clinton (talk) 02:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just removed that whole section, it was just a superfluous OR rant, maybe for wikinfo but not here. The link referred to above was inserted in this edit if anyone's wondering. - Zeibura (Talk) 02:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Proceedings - June 2008[edit]

I've added some content and sources in an attempt to rescue the article. I don't have a great deal of knowledge about the genre, so I can't fill the article out very well. Hopefully, someone else can fill in the gaps and correct any mistakes. If necessary, I can work more on sources in the short term. BecauseWhy? (talk) 23:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the proper discussion page for voting whether this article should be deleted or not? Its a joke. This article existed since 2002, its one of the oldes articles here and noone ever considered deleting it. and now someone decided, he doesn't like electroclash and puts a 'speedy delete' tag on it. Seriously... 'electroclash' gets 3 Mio Google hits. I would think thats notable enough? Sure, its just a stub but that is no reason to delete it. Splette :) How's my driving? 03:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Browsing a bit through the history of the article, I realize it has had a lot more detail in the past, until somone decided to remove the entire history section, just to add a 'speedy delete' tag because the 'subject is not significant'... Splette :) How's my driving? 03:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably the way to avoid that type of thing in the future is to add some sources on the info in the history. However, removing nearly all the content then adding a speedy tag is kinda'... silly. Which is why I re-added at least the lede. I'd be happy with more information being added again, but it'll need to be sourced. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 04:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the prod and added more sources. This is definitely a genre with lots of reliable sources mentioning it, though maybe we need to tone down the fluff a little. --AW (talk) 22:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delection of the Ball Culture link[edit]

Considering that the electroclash music has nothing to do with the underground LGBT culture, I removed the Ball Culture's link from the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.158.18.190 (talk) 13:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ladytron are NOT electroclash[edit]

The band Ladytron rejected the electroclash tag many times. In the early years, they were lumped on this scene by lazy journalists. Please don't include this band on the list of electroclash artists because they're NOT. They don't sound like any electroclash artists.

Were you uncomfortable with the media lumping you in with the electroclash movement during your early days?

We were always lumped in with bands we sounded nothing like and often didn't have much in common with. That was what made us uncomfortable. For that reason, we just tried to avoid any connection with the term. Our sound is never reactionary to outside elements, it’s always natural and down to experiences. source

We felt being compared to the day-glo trash-aesthetic of electroclash didn't make any sense. We were wise enough to know that being positioned by the press at the forefront of it, despite our protestations, would mean we bore the brunt of the backlash when it inevitably came. However, that happened anyway, and we survived. source

With any luck, the extended delay has washed away some of the lazy clichés that have plagued Ladytron since day one. Hunt is eager to finally outrun descriptors like 'aloof' (demeanor), 'asymmetrical' (haircuts), 'electroclash' (meaningless), and perhaps most inexplicably, 'Kraftwerk' (sounds like). source

We hate this fashion-led electroclash scene, the 80's clothes are horrible. We made it clear at the beginning that we are not interested in 80's revivalism, that the clothes and the hair are not interesting... just some of the music production. source


Ladytron described their music style as electronic pop:

It would be impossible to just simplify our music to that extent, but on sites like MySpace for example where we have to put little catchphrases describing our music we just put electronic pop. I guess that's the most direct and easiest to understand reference for who we are and what we do. source

Deepblue1 (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not a list of electroclash bands. It makes clear that they were associated with the genre and that they later eschewed the label. This would be an odd omission from the article. I also note that you added pretty much the same information to the Ladytron article with this edit [[4]]. Also please note that what a band say they are is not that important: Led Zeppelin disliked being called Heavy Metal and the Sex Pistols denied they were punk, yet every significant book on those respective genres mentions them. Bands rarely like the labels they are given, but they are given and if that is in reliable sources and notable we should mention it.--SabreBD (talk) 22:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because few journalists said (many years ago) they're electroclash, that means they really are? Plus: their sound evolved a lot during the years. You said "Also please note that what a band say they are is not that important". But to my ears (and I'm not the only one), they don't sound like electroclash. Instead adding Ladytron at "The style was pursued by artists including...", the best idea is to write a new sentence like this: "During the early years, Ladytron were sometimes labeled as electroclash, but they rejected this tag." (like my edit on Ladytron's page). That would be OK in my opinion. If anyone else knows about this subject please join the discussion. Deepblue1 (talk) 23:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see no problem with current wording in the main body of the article, but I see no reason to delete Ladytron from the lead, as it says "associated with" not necessarily "part of" the genre. This is just a statement of fact. As a sidenote it is often easier to get consensus if you get agreement here first and then post changes, rather than the other way around.--SabreBD (talk) 09:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Added two references confirming what you already formulated: Some reviewers state that Ladytron "were not entirely electroclash", and Ladytron themselves rejected this tag repeatedly in several interviews. In my own opinion the early Ladytron (604, Light&Magic) could be associated with new wave, electropop, electronic rock or synthpop, pretty much the same as for example Vive la Fête, but most of their songs lack some typical characteristics of electroclash such as the very simple, trashy structure and vocals just based on a square-wave electro bassline repeated in two octaves. In other words, their sound is too sophisticated and serious to be electroclash. --Rio65trio (talk) 00:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Artists are not authoritative sources for what genre they are. I wish people would understand this. Artists have vested interests in how they wish to promote themselves, and often try to deny that they are in any way associated with specific musical genres or movements, or specifically wish to market themselves as being a particular musical genre that nobody else (or very few people) would associate any other artist as (see Die Antwoord, for example, who describe their musical genre as "zef", which is meaninglessly circular, since it effectively boils down to "like Die Antwoord", see Sisters of Mercy, who reject the "goth/gothic rock" genre so hard that Andrew Eldritch will cancel a show if a local promoter uses the phrase on promotional materials because he's obsessed with it, despite being a seminal gothic rock band). Take the shoegaze genre, or witch house, which many people wasted many column inches and/or blog posts about whether they were even legitimate genres because a magazine that nobody even remembers (shoegaze) or some website (witch house) invented the genre names. Ultimately, a musical genre is a descriptive term which is applied to artists by the media and by their fans, and while an artist may have a bit of influence on how they are perceived, they cannot stick their finger in the dyke of descriptive linguistics and culture to prevent being described as particular genres by the press or their audiences. If Aerosmith said they were a blues band and not a rock band, would this be notable on the wikipedia page for "rock" or on Aerosmith's page? It would, at best, be a dumb statement that has no relation to reality by an artist who doesn't control how they are described by the world. Ladytron and many other bands on this page are described as "electroclash", and have been for a long time, regardless of what they might wish, or what they might say in any particular interview. All references on this page to what a particular artist regards their own genre as, or whether they consider themselves the genre that their audiences regularly categorize them as are irrelevant and not noteworthy, and should be removed. Who cares? This page is "Electroclash", not "Electroclash artists who do not reject the label". 96.27.27.76 (talk) 18:14, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Revision August 2016[edit]

In the last days I revised the article (early tracks and artists, labels, places, people, origins; new criticism section) based on existing and many further references. Hope it has made the article a little clearer now. --Rio65trio (talk) 17:14, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Electroclash. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 06:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Electroclash. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 03:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Electroclash&oldid=1196692237"