Talk:New Age music

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unknown Not rated

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Electronic music, set up to organize and expand entries on Electronic music. It has been rated as unknown priority to this Wikiproject.

Music Portal

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.

Previous discussions:

• Archive 1

[edit] Considering a new approach for the Definition of New_Age_Music

I started to edit the main article but decided to post this comment first. If no-one replies then I will go ahead and make the edit, but I am relatively new here and would prefer to discuss this with the other editors before making this change.

I suggest that we approach the definition of New Age music from a different direction. It should not be defined by the instruments that make the music, or by being electronic, or instrumental, or ambient, or meditative. The defining element is the feeling or experience it creates (or encourages) in the listener. That is a feeling most would consider positive, relaxing, inspiring, intriguing, expansive, comforting and inclusive of cultures. It is certainly true that much New Age music is electronic, and some of it is religious, but I would not define it as based on either of those ideas.

The article as it currently appears gives the impression that New Age Music is a subset of Electronic Music that many consider somewhat religious, and that lots of people don't like the term due to its religious connotation. That does not seem correct to me. If you browse the music in a so-called metaphysical bookstore, or even browse the wide variety of music listed as new age on Amazon, a large portion of the music is not electronic at all. Yes, much of it is, but not enough to make it a sub-genre of Electronic Music. Take for example a piano solo by George Winston, or a Native American Flute solo by Carlos Nakai - there is nothing electronic about those at all, yet they are widely considered to be part of New Age Music (even if the performers themselves do not call it that).

We should consider history as well - that this type of music started appearing commercially in small stores in the 1970s and began to gather momentum in the 1980s, but the term "New Age Music" was not used until the late 1980s when the major labels and radio stations like "the Wave" in Los Angeles (formerly KMPC) started using the term. The artists who had been making this kind of music independently for many years prior to that did not use the term "New Age" to describe their music. Mostly, they did not use any genre label at all because they did not begin within the record industry as such, they began with the music first and only later when the wider record industry discovered profits in this kind of music, around the time of the ascendancy of Windham Hill and now-defunct ventures like Private Music, then the genre needed to be named so the distributors and radio stations would know where to put it. In the earlier times this music was found mostly in bookstores and independent record stores with owners or buyers who sought it out.

It seems to me we should separate the history of New Age Music from the current breadth of this deep genre. At the beginning it was mostly instrumental. But New Age music has been evolving and expanding for 30 years! Now it includes plenty of vocal music, from Sanskrit Kirtan (and somewhat religious) chant music used for Yoga and meditation, to music called Celtic such as Enya and Loreena McKinnet and Gary Stadler (that may bring a "Celtic" impression but is certainly not Celtic in the academic historical sense).

I suggest we develop a definition of New Age music that begins with the feeling or intent of the music, and allows the format of the music and the instruments used to create it to be subordinate to the overarching element of the feeling it creates.

In this way we can - for example - differentiate ambient music from meditative New Age music. There is plenty of ambient music that is beautiful yet dark and disturbing. That kind of ambient music has a strongly valid artistic place, but it should not be included in New Age music, whereas ambient music that creates a peaceful meditative feeling would be included. Some ambient music would easily fit into both categories, for example Brian Eno - Music for Airports.

We can differentiate New Age Music from various other genres too, I just used Ambient as an example.

Please consider my comments and reply if you wish.Parzival418 08:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I like your ideas, sound very well thought out. Cricket02 16:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I wonder if it would be better to modify the content a bit at a time or first set up a new structure or outline for the new info to fit in. Much of the current version could have a place in the outline, but would not be the main thesis, rather be moved to a subsection or two. (I added a couple tags so readers can see this article is in flux) ... Parzival418 07:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a heds-up that I like your vision, too. --Tropylium 15:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I like you.I like you.I like you.Doktor Who 15:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding recent edit for alternative terms: I would agree to remove Scott D. Davis as I've requested references on his article page that have not yet been provided, but in reference to Bradley Joseph - he does state in the referenced interview that he uses "Contemporary instrumental", so that is a valid reference. I do still like your vision though. Carry on...:) Cricket02 08:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I noticed your request for references in the Scott D. Davis article and looked into it. I checked google and found only his own advertising, I checked All Music Guide and was not able to find anything there about him. I found that he has three albums for sale on Amazon, but that they are ranked in the hundreds of thousands which means they've sold only a few copies. So I did not find him notable and that's why I removed him from the article. Now that I look at this more closely, I see that removing the sentence about Scott Davis makes this subsection, headed Contemporary Classical, have no content at all related to the New Age music genre. I clicked the link in the heading and went to Contemporary Classical and did not find any mention in that article at all about New Age music. It seems to be a totally unrelated genre, not even similar at all. I don't know of any supporting references that connect them, and they are not sold in the same part of music stores. If there are references supporting the connection, I am open to re-evaluating, but for now, believe it would be best to simply remove "Contemporary Classical" from this article completely.

Regarding Bradley Joseph, after reviewing his main Wikipedia article and following the various links, I agree I was hasty and his reference should remain in this article. I see your point that his referenced interview supports the use of the term "Contemporary Instrumental" which adds context to that part of the article and helps to differentiate from the general term "New Age music".

Thanks for your encouragement and for explaining why you reverted those changes. Parzival418 10:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I must apologize for reverting so quickly, I did not realize who you were at first and the mission you've taken on. I would have to agree with you about removing "Contemporary Classical" as an alternative term, I've not come across it myself in relation to "new age". I've seen other artists use "contemporary instrumental" and "adult alternative", with their music being filed under "new age", so if you'd like, I can try and help find additional references and/or terms used. Cricket02 15:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks for the offer of help on this. For now, I removed "Contemporary Classical" per our discussion. As far as working on finding more alternative terms for New Age music, while that could lead to a few interesting examples, I'm not sure if that's the highest priority for our time (though you're welcome to go ahead with that if you like). I feel the article as a whole needs a new approach as I started to discuss at the beginning of this thread, but the vision is not clear yet, so I've been working on other stuff while I muse about it. I'm sure you've been plenty busy too! Parzival418 05:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ambient and New Age music

Ambient Music is an instrumental, not rhythmic and not melodic genre that uses techniques and styles of electronic music, minimalistic acoustic music, and often concrete (sampled) music; it aims to get an "atmospheric environment", a sort of sonic carpet, that can merge with environmental noises or that can be listened as a form of ambience soundtrack. Therefore, the so called Ambient Techno and Ambient House have nothing to do with Ambient Music. Actually, those styles are within the field of "Techno" dance music. Nevertheless, many works by KLF, The Orb, Aphex Twin and others are "pure electronic music" with no beats and drums, and many are pure ambient music, but most of their hits are Techno, a sophisticated form of techno, but nothing more. Sorry if that may annoy someone... Electronica is a non-sense, meaningless word, used only with regard to modern works that mix many different styles. The term "New Age" has a bit more sense, at least New Age artists and works seem to share the same purpose, that is to chill out the listener and help spiritual meditation. For this reason, New Age is hated both by religious fundamentalists (New Age is a plan of the Anti-Christ") and by those musicians and academics that reject such kinda "yoga tool" use of music.Dr. Who 00:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

We are already familiar with your eccentric POV on this and related subjects. There's no need to publish it on every talk page of every related article. It is still WP:OR that is not supported by any reference sources, and cannot be included in Wikipedia. --Gene_poole 03:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Please, when referring to your opinions about me, use the singular, there is only one person (yourself) that seems to be unable that I was trying to start a discussion, and that I never attempted to put my personal opinions in this article. The same I did at talk:ambient music: I asked if someone had any evidence that Ambient music is also a music form. It is evident to everybody that you are claiming to be the only legitimate owner of this article. And why you ignored Space music and New Age music for ages? You came here only to harrass me, isn't it cyberstalking?Doktor Who 19:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You don't seem to be following the discussion very well. Numerous editors have challenged your attempts to insert eccentric, unreferenced personal opinions into this and related articles. Wikipedia is not the place for you to conduct "discussions" about your non-mainstream pet theories. You can "discuss" them all you like, but as original research they cannot be written into Wikipedia. If your opinions ever gain broad acceptance, they will no doubt be documented in reputable independent sources - and those can then be quoted in the article. Until that happens, however, the article content needs to reflect current mainstream opinions - not the meandering personal reflections of one person. --Gene_poole 00:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems again that you are not able to understand the whole matter: I didn't insert any text in these articles (New Age/Ambient music). Who are the numerous editors? Which fucking edits are you talking about? My many edits (over 1500) are ALWAYS welcome and accepted, and almost never reverted. GOT IT???? Can you understand this simple English (or American-beginner level), or do I need to rephrase it into your formal-old fashioned-French influenced English? Doktor Who 16:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to explain why some musicians "hate" the term. Also, it seems that some months ago you almost reworked my above comment regarding ambient and wrote it in the main Ambient music. Cheers. :)Doktor Who 17:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from posting nonsensical personal abuse and profanities, or you will be reported and your account may be blocked. --Gene_poole 01:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, yes, report me, feel free. I want to see..... you have right scared me. "Personal abuse", ohohoh, pathetic....Doktor Who 18:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Doktor Who, Gene is provoking you with WP:POT-kettle; he himself has written article statements that he can't reference. He will try to take advantage of your emotional reactions, so just ignore anything provoking. I assume someone with Gene's style probably doesn't want anything explained to him by anybody, so I suggest that you not try. If you don't respond to him when provoked, that leaves more discussion space for normal editors to respond to you on content issues, even if they don't agree with you. Milo 10:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't understand that guy, really. Very strange person. I can't see how we can progress such articles if he's always trolling around us, I can't understand why he hasn't been banned yet. Doktor Who 10:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Relax some. Your contributions to the discussion are useful enough that I want to read them. Music is a universal language, and I welcome your discussion input from experiences outside the English-speaking countries. Milo 10:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your support, I appreciate it very much. I'm in touch, in the "real world", with a famous artist of the Canterbury Scene, I can't wait to meet him and talk about music.Doktor Who 10:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't clutter up article talk pages with off-topic personal chit-chat. Comments of that nature belong on your personal talk page. --Gene_poole 01:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Canterbury Scene is on topic. Milo 10:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not a discussion of the Canterbury scene. It is certainly not a discussion about who Doktor Who meets to talk about music with. Take it to your talk page. --Gene_poole 20:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Canterbury Scene involves artists who are among the progenitors of New Age Music. If we can have input from someone who was part of that scene at the time that will be an excellent source to improve the article. Comments in that regard are appropriate here. Parzival418 21:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, this is incredible. I've kept quiet long enough. While everyone else has been successful in maintaining a civil and intelligent conversation on this subject, User Gene_poole, has chosen to attack from the very start, and quite frankly its getting ridiculously exhausting. There. I had something to say. Now report me as a sockpuppet too. [1], [2], I encourage all to ignore this fool and carry on with the dialog on this subject, and let any and all reviewers see who is really the initiator in these attacks. Thank you. Cricket02 23:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The only "incredible" thing here is the extent to which one puppetmaster can create so much havoc while attempting to subvert Wikipedia content and verifiability policies. That's really all there is to it, and you'd do well not to encourage it. --Gene_poole 04:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My broken edit summary

1. (cur) (last) 16:00, 12 March 2007 JohnCub (Talk | contribs) (←Undid revision 114563690 by 209.204.98.238 (talk) -- Undoing because user')

I meant to say Undoing because user's contributions in the past few minutes have all been vandalisms so I assume this one is as well. JohnCub 16:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)