Talk:Ethereal wave/Archives/2014

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

Influences

I've added a few influences, both listing the musical elements (ambient, classical and world music in their broadest senses crop up) as well as specific artists. In my experience of reviewing considerable numbers of ethereal releases, the most common muscial influences were This Mortal Coil, Dead Can Dance and, to a certain degree, the Cocteau Twins, while vocally, Siouxsie and Julianne Regan (All About Eve) were the most commonly imitated. Donnacha 15:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Where is Darkwave? Why no Dark Ambient.

Actually there is no page for 'Darkwave, consider making one. Instead I linked fo 'Daark ambiant, which lists this as a subgenre.

ethereal or etheric wave is a term from the early '90s to describe these "floating" guitar sounds of bands like love spirals downwards or trance to the sun. This music is Ambient-influenced, but it's not a substyle of Ambient.
Darkwave and Dark Ambient now exist. Donnacha 15:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Additions

I added a few artists: The Shroud, Requiem in White/Mors Syphilitica, and Trio Nocturna. I will add many more later once I have the time. Let's make this a comprehensive list of the greatest Gothic subgenre out there! ;) JanderVK

Ethereal Wave isn't a Goth subgenre. --Menorrhea 18:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm confused. The bands mentioned in this article are discussed, reviewed and interviewed in Goth magazines and their recordings are sold in specialist Goth outlets and in the Goth section of general record shops. For that reason I have assumed that they constitute a sub-genre of Goth. Apparently I'm not alone in that assumption. So why is it wrong? How would you categorise these bands, and what sub-genres of Goth do you recognise? As a newcomer to the field, I want to know these things. Charivari 03:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, this is moving dangerously towards a "What is Goth?" discussion. The first point I'd make is that the Goth scene (including magazines, shops and clubs) is broader than simply Gothic Rock music. Ethereal Darkwave is considered part of that scene by most within the scene. As a style, Ethereal is a sub-set of Darkwave. Darkwave is a crossover genre, not a sub-genre, so it's not purely associated with Goth (there's bits of industrial, post-industrial and synthpop in there as well). Musically, Ethereal has as much to do with Shoegaze/Dreampop as Goth. Donnacha 08:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Many people are thinking that any kind of dark music is goth music... but that's a fallacy. In my opinion there are regional and personal differences. In Germany, the new Goth (neogoth?) generation doesn't know Ethereal Wave music. Here it's more a part of the formerly (dark-)wave culture. --Menorrhea 00:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
In Germany? All of it? It's hard to find two Goths in Dublin (which has a very small scene) who agree on the definition and where the boundaries are, I guarantee it's the same in Germany. Donnacha 08:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Germany has a great trend-oriented Goth scene within the dark culture. Music styles like Futurepop, Aggrotech or Goth metal predominate in German clubs and magazines. When you ask people about that "Goth thing", they say that "Goth music" is music of Nightwish, Manson, Blutengel or Subway to Sally. They think that Goth music is identical to Goth metal or Electrogoth. Many people don't know Gothic rock, they don't know Death rock, they don't know Ethereal music and they're thinking that VNV Nation is Dark wave... It's a really stupid and chart-oriented generation. In the Ruhr Area clubs it makes "boom boom boom" all the night. You'll automatically think that you're dancing in a techno club. --Menorrhea 20:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Germany is also the country in which Wave-Gotik-Treffen happens, so don't generalise. Also, go to Slimelight in London, one of the world's longest running "Goff" clubs. It regularly has a trad goth floor, an industrial/EBM/futurepop floor and, at the top, a boom boom boom techno noise floor. I was fairly infamous for playing the likes of Utah Saints, Messiah and the KLF in Goth clubs - my last set in a Dublin Goth club was electroclash. That doesn't mean I don't also like ethereal (though, I did get a bit bored of it a few years ago, I've since gotten back into it). Donnacha 21:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Look there... it looks like a German club, but it's in Montreal/Canada. Oh heaven, i'm getting sick... --Menorrhea 21:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I find that people need to pigeonhole music far too much. Is it so terrible to go with broader genre names instead of the potentially endless list of subgenres that can be created? Yakwhacker 18:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
New genres - new names. --~Menorrhea 14:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I've just added Cranes. I really think they should be here. I feel they're very notable, and, they have a good six or so albums worth of music (including eps, singles, etc...) that fit perfectly into this thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.188.228.26 (talk) 06:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

A dead genre!

Lycia, Love Spirals Downwards, Mors Syphilitica, Siddal, This Ascension, Trance to the Sun, Autumn's Grey Solace - all notable groups and figureheads of the genre split up or changed their style. Ethereal is consequently a dead genre. --Breathtaker 13:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Nah. It may be in slight remission at the moment. But, I really don't believe it'll really die anytime soon. There's a pretty vibrant nu-gazing scene, and as long as Projekt goes on, it'll all come back together. Though, LSD, Lovesliescrushing, Lycia, etc., will probably never be topped. I'm sure we'll still get pretty good bands like Tearwave (hate their name, though) now and again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.188.228.26 (talk) 06:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Nu-gazing isn't Ethereal. Tearwave isn't pure Ethereal. Autumn's Grey Solace changed their style. And without its figureheads the Ethereal movement is dead. At present, i can't find any notable Ethereal group. --Breathtaker 09:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Love Spirals Downwards - Stir About The Stars (1992).ogg

Image:Love Spirals Downwards - Stir About The Stars (1992).ogg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Siddal - Beds Of Light (1996).ogg

Image:Siddal - Beds Of Light (1996).ogg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 09:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Siddal - Beds Of Light (1996).ogg

Image:Siddal - Beds Of Light (1996).ogg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Love Spirals Downwards - Stir About The Stars (1992).ogg

Image:Love Spirals Downwards - Stir About The Stars (1992).ogg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 13:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Heavenly voices/ethereal Wave

There's a dispute over the use of the term heavenly voice. User:Ada Kataki keeps on deleting sourced material, because he doesn't seem to understand that in some countries the term "heavenly voices" is really used as a genre's name.

I know the term was basically used as a marketing name and as a compilation's name BUT here in Europe and most particularly in France the term "heavenly voices" is exclusively used as GENRE's NAME to refer to Ethereal wave. "Ethereal wave" is difficult to pronounce in French hence the fact the term "heavenly voices" is more commonly used. This name genre is used to refer to bands such as Love Spirals Downwards or Dead Can Dance. that is to say Ethereal wave bands.

I DO have published source which explicitely use this name as a genre's name and as an synonym to ethereal wave. Period.A book dedicated to gothic and dark music:

Check by yourself: http://carnetsnoirs.free.fr/html_cn1/contenu.html

So please refrain from deleting sourced material. Moreover note that you have violated the Three-revert rule. You may be blocked for that next time you'll do that. Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


Hello! I scanned a page from the German Gothic and Dark Wave encyclopedia.
Heavenly Voices is an utterly useless term without a clear definition. It was only a marketing term. Female vocals + atmospheric sounds. That's all. But in Ethereal Wave there are also male singers (Trance to the Sun, Lycia). --Ada Kataki (talk) 21:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't care, still the term heavenly voice is used as a genre's name in France. And I provide an authoritative source for that. I'm not contesting yours. But while this term is only a marteking term in some other countries it doesn't mean it is the case in some others. Because it is not used that way in Germany doesn't mean it is not used in other countries. period.What I propose is to insert your source to indicate that in some other countries, heavenly voices is not considered as a real genre.
What that got to do with the current article dispute? I got a published source where it is explicitely claimed. Period. And you dare to delete a sourced material. Your opinion concerning other wikipedia's articles doesn't matter here. And you're deleting a sourced material arguing " we're not in France!" But please care to read the rules concerning local Bias. I didn't change this article name for heavenly voices! No, I only mentioned that in some other countries this name is used as a synonym to ethereal wave. Because something doesn't happen in your culture doesn't mean it doesn't in other cultures. Stop judging things from your own cultural perspective. Period. Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 21:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
What that got to do with the current article dispute?
Ethereal Wave isn't the same like Heavenly Voices. Ethereal Wave is primarily a guitar genre (a guitar synthesizer genre), influenced by Cocteau Twins, early Dead Can Dance and others. But the french Heavenly Voices article deals primarily with Neoclassical groups, not Ethereal Wave bands. Why don't you create an English Heavenly Voices article? But please, don't ignore my published source. --Ada Kataki (talk) 22:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Please care to read What I'm saying. I'm not refering to the french wiki article( I didn't write it)Here I'm refering to an authoritative published source which explictely states what I'm arguing. So attaking the french wiki article is pointless and absurd. You don't prove anything doing so cause I didn't refer to it. I'm refering to a Book which explictely deals with ethereal wave genre. Period. But I agree Ethereal wave is primarly a guitar genre influenced by Cocteau Twins and Dead Can dance.But this genre in France is called officially Heavenly voices. Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 22:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Protected

The page is now protected for five days days. During this time, please try and find common ground and arrive to a version that all can live with. If you cannot, this is a good time to pursue dispute resolution such as third opinions or requests for comments. If you are ready to resume editing or to contest the protection, place a request at WP:RFPP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Possible redirect

Given the bands listed, the term "etheral wave" seems to be a synonym for dream pop, meaning this article should be turned into a redirect link to that page. WesleyDodds (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Not really. Ethereal is an outgrowth of Gothic rock (read Dave Thompson's book The dark Reign of Gothic rock). The Cocteau Twins are the archetypical Ethereal band in 1983. Dreampop is an american term for gentle shoegazer music. There is a audible difference between Cocteau's 83/84/85-period and their new start with "Victorialand" in 1986. --Ada Kataki (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
No, dream pop refers to the Cocteau Twins and Dead Can Dance. This page is the first time I've ever heard of the term "etheral wave". From the looks of it they're the same thing. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
It can not be the same thing, because Ethereal is a part of the Dark Wave movement. Dream pop has nothing to do with Dark Wave (and also nothing with Dead Can Dance). --Ada Kataki (talk) 09:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Ada Kataki, Ethereal wave and Dream Pop are different genres. So I disagree with the proposition to turn this article into a redirect.Fred D.Hunter (talk) 10:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, 'Ethereal' should definitely be a redirect to 'Dream Pop'. After all, groups like Mazzy Star and groups like Mors Syphilitica just have oh so much in common, don't they? </sarcasm> (Love it all, though!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.188.228.26 (talk) 06:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Notability

I'm struggling to find reliable sources to establish "ethereal wave" as a legitimate subgenre... webzines and forums seem to be occasionally use the term, but that is far from being good enough. Are there any decent print sources discussing the supposed genre in detail? Otherwise, it should be taken to AfD. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and while I'm here, genres are not capitalised, per WP:MOS and refereences to bands with no established notability (e.g. Siddal) is unacceptable. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
A Black metal fan shouldn't care about unfamiliar topics. --Ada Kataki (talk) 00:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Stop being normative Ada Kataki and give us a break with your stereotypes and personal attacks. Because someone likes black metal doesn't necessarilly mean he knows nothing else. Even if he knew nothing about this music,it doesn't necessarilly mean he can't raise doubts concerning the legitimacy of this article with respect to wikipedia's policy. It's up to us to prove he's wrong by complying with wikipedia's policy. So instead of making personnal attacks, try to be constructive and give sources. And please, behave. This said, I stand with you concerning the issue. This article doesn't need to betaken to AfD. Fred D.Hunter (talk) 07:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for some sanity there :-) However, if it doesn't need to be taken to AfD, can we have some sourcing? Plenty of bands have been described as "ethereal" but not in a genre sense, as far as I can see. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 12:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Not every source is a good source. Folk music elements? With this description, all the Ethereal bands aren't Ethereal bands. Opera-like vocals? There's no Ethereal band with opera-like vocals. Love Spirals Downwards or Cocteau Twins aren't "opera-like". --Ada Kataki (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources added. The German magazine "Glasnost" contains a "genre sense" description (interviews, reviews etc.), closely connected to the music of the Cocteau Twins. Furthermore there is a description in Dave Thompsons book The dark realm of Gothic rock. Thompson also agreed, that Ethereal is an outgrowth of Gothic rock. --Ada Kataki (talk) 18:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Already looking vastly better. I have a couple of queries though... the gothicsubculture.com reference is clearly not a reliable source, so should probably be replaced. I also can't find anything online about Glasnost Wave magazine to confirm it's not a self-published fanzine or similar... is there any way you can clear this up? Obviously, if it is self-published it also needs to be replaced. I had a bit of a look myself and found plenty of sources describing the Cocteaus as "ethereal", but always as an adjective, not a genre (this was where my initial query came from... I'm a long-term Cocteaus, Dead Can Dance and This Mortal Coil fan but have never heard them described as "ethereal wave"). Blackmetalbaz (talk) 10:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Replace yourself, guy. I'm really bored of that shit. If you need the magazine - buy it!--Ada Kataki (talk) 15:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Please read WP:CIVIL. And remember that the burden of proof in any discussion is on the claimant... in this case, you. I am struggling to find any online sources to back-up the reliability of this magazine, published over ten years ago. A scan would be useful. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 12:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Ada Kataki is already famlliar with WP:CIVIL but he really has a problem with it in general (believe me, you're far from being the first person to experience it, he already was blocked for his inapropriate comportement) but at least for being familiar with his comportement, I know he's honest in general. But anyway I'm not trying to find excuses to his comportement. But as you noticed he's already provided the scans to me before you even asked for some. I checked them and what he claims is correct from what I can see. But if you need quotes, I can give them to you and even translate them for you if you need.
Fred D.Hunter (talk) 13:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Notable Artists List

Why Lovesliescrushing in the notable artist list? They are some kind of ambient/shoegaze/noise music... and have nothing in common with other bands in this list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamadei (talk • contribs) 20:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Politely disagreeing. They show some of the characteristics, not prominently, but distinctly there. This is a case of defying categorization to a degree, yet remaining important to a few genres, including this one. Pixel Eater (talk) 19:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Protection of this page

Hi. Is it possible for this page to be protected from a vandal who keeps edit-warring? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.184.113 (talk) 18:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Vandal? Your problem is your brain. It's missing, i think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.134.10.48 (talk) 18:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


Yes, vandal. You keep deleting artists who actually DOES ethereal wave. You don't even know what it is. Stop deleting the names, or I will report you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.184.113 (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Read my edit summaries. EOD. There is nothing more to say.
Considering the personal attacks, the insults and the specific arguments used in this war it seems like an old banned user known as Ada Kataki is back around under an IP. Anyway, for my part I don't mind whether you include Gerrard or not, but please refrain from editwaring. Note my request concerns both of you.(Edit wars generally imply two persons - not just one). Thanks for your attention and comprehension.Alpha Ursae Minoris (talk) 06:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Look, guys, I'm really tired with your childish fights. Don't start an edit war again. You both know how it's gonna end.Alpha Ursae Minoris (talk) 08:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm bored too. Flëur is a Folkie band. They doesn't play gothrock-like Ethereal guitars. There is absolutely no relationship to the music of Cocteau Twins, early DCD, Love Spirals Downwards, Lycia and other groups. Furthermore Gerrard is not a band. Why can he not accept the fact? Jesus Christ, what a dumbass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.134.6.180 (talk) 16:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Look, I consider both of you as reponsible for this silly edit war. Both of you have already crossed the line of the 3RR a few weeks ago. I had to ask for a block two weeks ago because of your futile fights. Now the block is over and you start again? No one of you seem to care Wikipedia's rules (civility, 3RR, assume good faith, discuss and find a consensus). All you do is revert and insult each other. And I'm really tired with this disruptive attitude. So this time, if you don't stop this war, I'm afraid I won't just ask for a block. Alpha Ursae Minoris (talk) 19:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm more than willing to stop, but this bozo wouldn't stop deleting the artists that DOES ETHREAL WAVE. And, STOP leaving hate messages on my talk page you childish punk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.184.113 (talk) 19:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Clean the List

  • Aurastys is an Ambient/Electronica group.
  • Claire Voyant is an Electronic/Trip-Hop group. They don't use any guitars.
  • Flëur is a Russian Folkie band.
  • Ordo Equitum Solis is Neofolk-related. This music has nothing to do with Ethereal.
  • Sigur Ros is a Post-Rock band. This band has absolutely nothing to do with Goth or Darkwave.
  • This Mortal Coil was a cooperation of different 4AD musicians. There is no clear genre style.
  • X-mal Deutschland was a traditional Goth Rock band. They never used ethereal vocals or dreamy guitars with hall and delay effects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.134.4.52 (talk) 15:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Dear ex-Ada Kataki, I still remember the edit war you were engaged in concerning Flëur last year. I note the insidious way you apparently intend to reimpose your views - probably expecting it will be left unnoticed, in this list of deletion. Don't misunderstand me: I'm not standing against your position. I don't know this band, and I could not pronounce on this issue. And I don't care actually. Feel free to delete the said bands, if there are no objections here. For example, X-mal Deutschland is indeed a goth rock band not a EW one. No doubt about that, here. But let's make sure this global deletion meets a consensus before diung anything about the bands considered. Because this is the best way to restart an edit war. Anyway I'll turn a blind eye on the fact you're a banned user, as it is none of my business. But be sure, if another war occurs here because of you, I'll take serious dispositions and expose you. I'm not saying this to be rude. I know I generally agree with your views on such issues. But your purism and your recurent disregard for civility rules may be disruptive with regard to wikipedia's principles. Alpha Ursae Minoris (talk) 10:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

{{subst:rbt}} Ethereal Wave → Ethereal wave – Music genres are not capitalised. I don't see why this should be an exception. Lachlan Foley (talk) 23:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment but "ethereal wave" has a meaning in obsolete physics. Prior to Michelson-Morley ethereal waves were the explanation for light. So "ethereal wave" should be a disambiguation page. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ethereal_wave/Archives/2014&oldid=1040143623"