Talk:Dub music

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"

Dub music/Dub reggae merged

It appears as though the two topics have been merged (Dub reggae redirects to Dub music), so I'm going to "comment out" the discussion of merging the two. I'll leave it in the HTML for the Talk page, though, just in case I'm mistaken or we need to revive the discussion. Oed 03:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Dub poetry

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

Animal sounds, babys crying?

The music sometimes features processed sound effects and other noises, such as animal sounds, babies crying, and producers shouting instructions at the musicians.

I've listened to quite a lot of dub, but never heard any other those sounds... should be removed

Then you probably haven't heard some of the numerous tracks that feature these effects. Joe Gibbs, for one, has used babies crying, cars honking, etc. And the part about producers and muscicans shouting to each other? I've heard that on numerous recordings, including King Tubby, Augustus Pablo and several others. This part should surely not be deleted. I edited this article so that King Tubby was mentioned before Lee Perry, and mentioned his status as being recognized as the inventor of dub. --Twisturbed Tachyon 09:11, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Lee Perry is fond of making these sounds himself, for example on Experryments at the grass roots of dub. I wouldnt consider it particularily genre defining though. Htaccess 02:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Whereas it is technically correct that some dubs have included those particular sounds, might it not be more broadly correct to say The music sometimes features non instrumental sounds and heavily processed sound effects. Superfami

A bit late to say it, but whoever wrote that may well have been thinking of the dub side of Culture's I'm Not Ashamed single. BTLizard 12:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

King Tubby was the inventor of Dub

Dub music was originally an accidental creation. It started with Ruddy Redwood's Treasure Isle Sound System that Osbourne Ruddock aka King Tubby operated. Ruddy was given a disc that, through oversight, had no vocal track. Being a popular tune, Rudduck nonetheless played it anyway. The crowd went crazy. Never to far from the latest trends, other producers took note as Jamaica in 1968 got itself caught up in an instrumental frenzy. Tubby was an electronics genius and thought that more could be done to these instrumental "versions". So he introduced self-built primitive echo and reverb units to his own Home Town Hi Fi Sound System, adding the extra-spacial dimension that became the the identifying hallmark of Dub. He even went further by adding his own home built graphic equalizer that enabled him to to take out various parts and accentuate others in a track. It also enabled him to create the signature low end bass sound prevalent in all dub music today. Eventually, with the popularity of dub in the 70's, Tubby became the most sought out engineer in Jamaica.

Source: BBC 2002 article from the sleeve of the CD compilation: King Tubby 100% Dub

I'd just like to big up whoever listed "Surrounded By the Dreads at the National Arena" as an, if not the, epochal dub album. That's the way I remember it. As I understood it at the time it was also this show, at which Tubby pioneeringly performed with a multitrack mixing desk live, that made his name in Jamaica. Wwwhatsup 00:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

No...

Dub music is not quite always associated with reggae music.

Dub often (very) refers to electronica/ trip hop. Things totally unassociated with reggae music.

John 05:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Totally false, dub is reggae... big controversy ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alois.cochard (talk • contribs) 08:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Asian Dub Foundation?

Why is Asian Dub Foundation not noted? They are Dub... --86.89.24.41 15:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)MemoriesOnAcid

Why not? Simple answer -- they are not even remotely a footnote in the history of reggae or dub. I am not saying they are a bad group per se ( surely a subjective conjecture anyway) -- but they are not in any way significant in the history of dub or reggae. Period. They should however, certainly get kudos and heads up in any discussion page related to the history of Asian popular music in the late 20th C UK —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rutherfordlad (talk • contribs) 12:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Serbians

Black Ark Crew may not be notable by themselves; their article is up for deletion. But their existence should probably be noted here as an example of the spread of this music; if the link turns red, I'll delink. JCScaliger 22:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Herman Chin

I had thought it was Clive Chin who actually did the pioneering production work with Errol T.? Wwwhatsup 04:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Long Beach Dub All Stars/Shortbus

Definitely Dub --146.151.17.90 07:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Dub artists

I have removed red and external links from the section. Please create an article for the artist/group/band first, and then add it to the list, that way it is easier to weed out unnotable/inappopriate items. Secondly, I think we should only include artists whose main genre is dub, not every band who are said to be dub-influenced. Any comments are welcome. #29 ^(talk) 10:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, a lot of bands are influenced by dub, I think that's important - but, now that Captown is mentioned, why not Primal Scream? They've made many dub numbers, and a purely dub record, so I think they fit here, as a more well known name in the biz.

Used widely

From the article: "Today, the word 'dub' is used widely to describe the re-formatting of music..." Is this supposed to mean that many people use the word this way? If so, then maybe "widely used" is better. If it's supposed be in contrast to its more narrow original usage, it should read "used broadly". I'm not sure what was intended here.--Theodore Kloba (talk) 17:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

New Zealand

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

General Cleanup and Grammar

The grammar, punctuation, and topical relevance of much of this article is poor. I've made various changes to grammatical issues, but would like to see if anyone is willing to help clean up the larger issues, such as the Influence of Dub on Punk and Rock Music section, in which the paragraph beginning "Since the beginning of rastafarian dub music, there have been gang issues ..." seems to serve no current purpose, or needs to be completely rewritten. "Peace came when.."; I mean, come on. A lot of this sounds like it was translated by Babelfish. There have to be some people out there who are seriously knowledgeable and want to do more iwth this article than list bands and give their opinion.--Genobeeno (talk) 23:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The section Impact on Remixing that begins "'Dubbing' became popular in the late 1960s..." is completely redundant and will be removed.--Genobeeno (talk) 23:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Use of Slang

Use of slang terminology seems like it doesn't fit with Wikipedia conventions, for example in the use of "riddim" although it could be said that this is a proper noun due to its widespread usage in the genre. Still, it's not widely accepted English and should be either put in quotations or excised.--Genobeeno (talk) 23:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Paragraphs not conforming to headers

The paragraph under Influence of Dub on Punk and Rock Music beginning "Traditional dub has survived..." seems like it should obviously be moved to the 21st Century Dub in the Roots Tradition section. Is there a reason this would be in the section on influences on Punk and Rock music? Also, the links to non existing articles shoudl be removed from this paragraph.--Genobeeno (talk) 16:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

History dating convention

Again, obviously, paragraphs referencing the 1970s probably shouldn't be int he paragraph titled Late 1960s: "versions", experiments with studio mixing, right? I propose an additional subheading for the 1970s. Also, the dating convention should have internal consistency. For example, it should either be 1960s: blah blah blah, or Blah blah blah (1960s), etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Genobeeno (talk • contribs) 16:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Cleaning up poor grammar in The term and Characteristics sections.

I'm not sure why anyone would revert to the poor grammar used in the earlier version of this article, but I'm going to do my best to clean it up. Overall, this article reads like a fifth grade book report, so, hey, if anyone has meaningful input, please, bring it to the table. Otherwise, please, don't revert reasonable corrections to earlier versions with incorrect grammar and poor spelling.

In the Characteristics section, paragraph one, the phrase "part vocal and extra percussion" is certainly a fragment and should be changed. Unless we can define "part vocal" in relation to "extra percussion", it makes no sense. Also, "echo" is linked to echo (phenomenon) where it should be linked to delay (audio effect.

Genobeeno (talk) 17:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)