Jump to content

Talk:Dub music: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
 
(13 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|class=c|1=
{{WikiProject Caribbean|class=C|importance=High|Jamaica=yes|Jamaica-importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Electronic music|class=|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Caribbean|class=|importance=High|Jamaica=yes|Jamaica-importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Reggae|class=C|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Reggae|class=|importance=top}}
{{genre|class=C}}
{{genre|class=}}
{{WikiProject Rave|class=}}
{{WikiProject Rave|class=}}
}}
}}
<!--Archive notice-->
<!--Archive notice-->
{{auto archiving notice|bot=lowercase sigmabot III|age=90<!--|small=yes-->}}
<!--Archive instructions-->
<!--Archive instructions-->
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo=old(180d)
| algo=old(180d)
| archive=Talk:Dub (music)/Archive %(counter)d
| archive=Talk:Dub music/Archive %(counter)d
| counter=1
| counter=1
| maxarchivesize=100K
| maxarchivesize=100K
Line 17: Line 17:
| minthreadstoarchive=1
| minthreadstoarchive=1
}}
}}
{{archive box |search=yes |auto=long}}
{{archive box |search=yes |auto=long |age=90 |bot=lowercase sigmabot III}}

==Etymology==
In the main article "dub" is identified as an abbreviation of "double" which, of course, it is not. Since this is my first visit (wanted to see if this weekend's 10th. anniversary party at Elbo Room was mentioned) I don't know how/where to insert the fact that "dub" is an abbreviation for "dubbing", as in "overdubbing"

But what you're saying is that "dub" is derived from "dub" - not helpful. The "dub" in "overdubbing" is, indeed, derived from "double" and the "dub" in "dub music" isn't really a new word so much as a re-use of that word in a new context.[[Special:Contributions/67.180.148.17|67.180.148.17]] ([[User talk:67.180.148.17|talk]]) 17:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


== Dub poetry ==
== Dub poetry ==
Line 34: Line 29:
Surprised not to see New Zealand featured in this article. Dub and reggae is huge part of their culture.
Surprised not to see New Zealand featured in this article. Dub and reggae is huge part of their culture.


== Electronic music ==
== Requested move 21 October 2015 ==

<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
:''The following is a closed discussion of a [[WP:requested moves|requested move]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a [[Wikipedia:move review|move review]]. No further edits should be made to this section. ''


I've never seen dub as "electronic music" - it's usually some combination of drums, bass, guitar, piano, organ, horns and vocals.
The result of the move request was: '''Move.''' Participants have established that this form is standard on Wikipedia and used in sources. [[User:Cuchullain|Cúchullain]] [[User talk:Cuchullain|<sup>t</sup>]]/[[Special:Contributions/Cuchullain|<small>c</small>]] 14:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia's article on Electronic music (which includes a section on dub which I similarly don't think belongs there) begins, "Electronic music is music that employs electronic musical instruments, digital instruments and ''circuitry-based music technology''." Give or take the occasional presence of synthesizers in some reggae and dub records from circa 1974, dub doesn't usually contain electronic musical instruments, let alone digital ones, which didn't arrive in reggae until the 1980s. So presumably the definition of dub as electronic music is based on the third element in that sentence, ''circuitry-based music technology''. Which covers a huge multitude of sins but in this context presumably refers to the use of reverb, echo, mixing desk channels, overdubbed sound effects etc. But ALL these elements are used to a greater or lesser extent in other, non-dub reggae recordings, and much other music that is not "electronic", just less ostentatiously than in dub. Even though I happily accept the description of the likes of Lee Perry and others "using the recording studio as an instrument", it's only a matter of degree. So where do you draw the line regarding when wild use of the mixer and on-board effects makes a music electronic? Surely by this definition, ''anything'' recorded through a mixing desk is electronic music. And that's before we get into the circuitry in instrument amplifiers ...


For me, electronic music starts with electronically ''generated'' sounds - i.e. synthesized, whether analog or digital. Dub (at least before reggae started going digital) is electric music, certainly, but not electronic. I'm not going to remove this reference but unless someone can come up with a good argument for what makes a dub version electronic while the vocal cut of the same tune on the A-side, recorded and mixed in the same studio, isn't, it really ought to go.[[User:Freewheeling frankie|Freewheeling frankie]] ([[User talk:Freewheeling frankie|talk]]) 17:11, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
----


No takers? If no one can give a well-argued reason why "King Tubby Meets Rockers Uptown" by Augustus Pablo is electronic music when "Baby I Love You So" by Jacob Miller isn't, the description of dub as "electronic music" should be removed from this article (and by extension the section on dub in the article on electronic music should be removed also) because it makes no sense to me. The two tracks I mention - dub and vocal mixes of the same recording - feature the same instrumentation and vocalist and were mixed in the same studio on the same equipment by the same engineer, the only distinction is the style of mixing, and I don't see how a "style of mixing" can make a recording electronic. Either both of them are electronic - and by extension nearly all popular music is because it's passed through a mixing desk - or neither is. There isn't an electronic instrument anywhere near it. The only electronic equipment used is the mixing desk, which is used on both versions. Note that I am not saying that NO dub is electronic, merely that dub as a genre is not electronic by definition.[[User:Freewheeling frankie|Freewheeling frankie]] ([[User talk:Freewheeling frankie|talk]]) 18:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)


== Evolution of dub as a subgenre (1970s) ==
[[:Dub (music)]] → {{no redirect|Dub music}} – This is the standard title format for music genre articles (see e.g. [[pop music]] or [[rock music]]); the current format instead indicates that dub is a feature of music, such as a specific technique or sound (see e.g. [[screaming (music)]] or [[programming (music)]]). --<small>[[User talk:Mashaunix|MA]]</small>[[User:Mashaunix|SHAUN]]<small>[[Special:Contributions/Mashaunix|IX]]</small> 14:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
* '''Support''' per nom's sound analysis. --[[User:Cavarrone|'''C'''avarrone]] 16:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' because it's always referred to simply as 'dub', not 'dub music'. --[[User:Michig|Michig]] ([[User talk:Michig|talk]]) 20:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
* '''Comment''' generally just called dub, dub reggae even, will rarely hear the expression 'dub music' in fan discourse, but, some notable writing on the subject does use the term throughout, see [https://books.google.se/books/about/Dub.html?id=rveYGxIUD4oC&redir_e Dub: Soundscapes and Shattered Songs in Jamaican Reggae] for example. [[User:Semitransgenic|<span style="font- weight:bold; color:black; text-shadow:grey 0.3em 0.3em 0.4em;"> <i>Semitransgenic</i></span>]] <sub><small>[[User talk:Semitransgenic|<font color="gold">talk.</font>]]</small></sub> 22:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
----
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|requested move]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Move review|move review]]. No further edits should be made to this section.</div><!-- Template:RM bottom -->


I've just re-written a short paragraph in this section about the album "The Undertaker" by Derrick Harriott & The Crystalites. The previous wording asserted that it was the first "strictly instrumental reggae album". This isn't true - at the very least the Upsetters entirely instrumental (give or take spoken intros) "Return Of Django" album came out several months earlier in late 1969 and may not be the only one to do so, or even the first itself; I changed the wording to reflect this. However, I wonder if the person that added this para included "The Undertaker" because it was the first album of instrumental versions of already existing rhythms, which would very much justify its mention here, but didn't make it clear; this certainly doesn't apply to "Return Of Django" where most of the tracks were originally recorded as organ instrumentals. If anyone is more knowledgeable than me about the Crystalites album and whether it is indeed the first instrumental reggae album to feature rhythms previously used for vocal tracks, please re-write this section accordingly and reference if possible.
I thought the idea was to establish consensus? It certainly wasn't established here. --[[User:Michig|Michig]] ([[User talk:Michig|talk]]) 18:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


It might also be worth citing some of the more notable early version sides that pointed the way towards full-blown dub but only came out on single B-sides in this section, such as Lee Perry's "The Tackro" (credited to 1st, 2nd & 3rd Generation Upsetters), a stripped-down drums and bass remix of his vocal version of "Yakety Yak" with echo effects and Perry's distinctive vocalese that came out as early as late 1969 - I can only find blog mentions that reference this but hopefully someone knows better sources. Restricting mentions to albums isn't enough because they only reflected innovations that had already taken place on single B-sides.[[User:Freewheeling frankie|Freewheeling frankie]] ([[User talk:Freewheeling frankie|talk]]) 17:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
:Two editors explicitly supported the move, with sound arguments, and a third offered evidence that the proposed title is in use in sources, which countered the one opposing argument. Consensus was established.--[[User:Cuchullain|Cúchullain]] [[User talk:Cuchullain|<sup>t</sup>]]/[[Special:Contributions/Cuchullain|<small>c</small>]] 18:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
::Only four editors contributed, two of which state that 'dub music' is not the common name for the topic. --[[User:Michig|Michig]] ([[User talk:Michig|talk]]) 19:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
:::it doesn't look like a strong consensus, which is required to move a long standing article with a stable title, I commented because ultimately either would work, both are used. Technically, dub is also a feature of the music, that's the origin of the style, a dub version of a recorded work, so [[dub (music)]] is not too far of the mark. [[User:Semitransgenic|<span style="font- weight:bold; color:black; text-shadow:grey 0.3em 0.3em 0.4em;"> <i>Semitransgenic</i></span>]] <sub><small>[[User talk:Semitransgenic|<font color="gold">talk.</font>]]</small></sub> 21:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
::::I'll try to explain my reasoning a bit more. Move requests aren't votes; arguments, evidence and policy are what carry weight. I found the consensus here sufficient to move the article, especially considering that the supporters presented compelling arguments and the only opposing argument was effectively countered. The proposed title fits [[WP:AT]] policy: [[WP:NATURALDIS|natural disambiguation]] is generally preferable to a title with a parentheses where available, even if it's less common, and the evidence presented here shows that "dub music" is in use in the sources. It was not a particularly strong local consensus, but a rough consensus supported by relevant policy is enough. If I thought leaving the discussion going longer could have found a different result I might have relisted, but I just don't see that happening.--[[User:Cuchullain|Cúchullain]] [[User talk:Cuchullain|<sup>t</sup>]]/[[Special:Contributions/Cuchullain|<small>c</small>]] 16:08, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 13:09, 10 January 2024

Dub poetry

[edit]

Is dub poetry a big enough topic to have it's own page, or would a discussion fit better here? Zeimusu 14:08, 2004 Jun 28 (UTC)

Behold the a-answer Htaccess

New Zealand

[edit]

Surprised not to see New Zealand featured in this article. Dub and reggae is huge part of their culture.

Electronic music

[edit]

I've never seen dub as "electronic music" - it's usually some combination of drums, bass, guitar, piano, organ, horns and vocals. Wikipedia's article on Electronic music (which includes a section on dub which I similarly don't think belongs there) begins, "Electronic music is music that employs electronic musical instruments, digital instruments and circuitry-based music technology." Give or take the occasional presence of synthesizers in some reggae and dub records from circa 1974, dub doesn't usually contain electronic musical instruments, let alone digital ones, which didn't arrive in reggae until the 1980s. So presumably the definition of dub as electronic music is based on the third element in that sentence, circuitry-based music technology. Which covers a huge multitude of sins but in this context presumably refers to the use of reverb, echo, mixing desk channels, overdubbed sound effects etc. But ALL these elements are used to a greater or lesser extent in other, non-dub reggae recordings, and much other music that is not "electronic", just less ostentatiously than in dub. Even though I happily accept the description of the likes of Lee Perry and others "using the recording studio as an instrument", it's only a matter of degree. So where do you draw the line regarding when wild use of the mixer and on-board effects makes a music electronic? Surely by this definition, anything recorded through a mixing desk is electronic music. And that's before we get into the circuitry in instrument amplifiers ...

For me, electronic music starts with electronically generated sounds - i.e. synthesized, whether analog or digital. Dub (at least before reggae started going digital) is electric music, certainly, but not electronic. I'm not going to remove this reference but unless someone can come up with a good argument for what makes a dub version electronic while the vocal cut of the same tune on the A-side, recorded and mixed in the same studio, isn't, it really ought to go.Freewheeling frankie (talk) 17:11, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No takers? If no one can give a well-argued reason why "King Tubby Meets Rockers Uptown" by Augustus Pablo is electronic music when "Baby I Love You So" by Jacob Miller isn't, the description of dub as "electronic music" should be removed from this article (and by extension the section on dub in the article on electronic music should be removed also) because it makes no sense to me. The two tracks I mention - dub and vocal mixes of the same recording - feature the same instrumentation and vocalist and were mixed in the same studio on the same equipment by the same engineer, the only distinction is the style of mixing, and I don't see how a "style of mixing" can make a recording electronic. Either both of them are electronic - and by extension nearly all popular music is because it's passed through a mixing desk - or neither is. There isn't an electronic instrument anywhere near it. The only electronic equipment used is the mixing desk, which is used on both versions. Note that I am not saying that NO dub is electronic, merely that dub as a genre is not electronic by definition.Freewheeling frankie (talk) 18:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution of dub as a subgenre (1970s)

[edit]

I've just re-written a short paragraph in this section about the album "The Undertaker" by Derrick Harriott & The Crystalites. The previous wording asserted that it was the first "strictly instrumental reggae album". This isn't true - at the very least the Upsetters entirely instrumental (give or take spoken intros) "Return Of Django" album came out several months earlier in late 1969 and may not be the only one to do so, or even the first itself; I changed the wording to reflect this. However, I wonder if the person that added this para included "The Undertaker" because it was the first album of instrumental versions of already existing rhythms, which would very much justify its mention here, but didn't make it clear; this certainly doesn't apply to "Return Of Django" where most of the tracks were originally recorded as organ instrumentals. If anyone is more knowledgeable than me about the Crystalites album and whether it is indeed the first instrumental reggae album to feature rhythms previously used for vocal tracks, please re-write this section accordingly and reference if possible.

It might also be worth citing some of the more notable early version sides that pointed the way towards full-blown dub but only came out on single B-sides in this section, such as Lee Perry's "The Tackro" (credited to 1st, 2nd & 3rd Generation Upsetters), a stripped-down drums and bass remix of his vocal version of "Yakety Yak" with echo effects and Perry's distinctive vocalese that came out as early as late 1969 - I can only find blog mentions that reference this but hopefully someone knows better sources. Restricting mentions to albums isn't enough because they only reflected innovations that had already taken place on single B-sides.Freewheeling frankie (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]