Talk:Dubstep/Archive 4

Opening paragraph

I think the first sentence should be reworded a tiny bit to clarify. Dubstep is a sub genre and not a genre of it's own at all. It is a sub genre of techno or electronic dance music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.243.210 (talk) 17:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

the opening paragraph of the article could definitely use improvement. in a way it doesn't say much about what dubstep sounds like - instead, what it is busy doing is establishing notability, who coined the phrase, where the sound came from, and that sort of thing. here it is, broken down:

Dubstep is a genre of electronic music that has its roots in London's early 2000s UK garage scene.

this statement is fine - what this article is about, in a broad sense, and some context.

Musically, dubstep is distinguished by its dark mood, sparse rhythms, and emphasis on bass.

this could do with improvement - it's OK, i guess, and sort of explains the difference between, say, dubstep and psy-trance, but it could be a hell of a lot better.

Dubstep started to spread beyond small local scenes in late 2005 and early 2006, with many websites devoted to the genre appearing on the Internet and thus aiding the growth of the scene, such as dubstepforum, the download site Barefiles and blogs such as gutterbreakz.

this is where the problem becomes apparent - i'm reading this article for the first time. whilst things like sources, asserting notability, and the internet as a disseminating factor in the spread of the genre are undoubtedly important, a first-time reader of the article has no interest in this. his concerns are more along the line of "what is it?".

Simultaneously, the genre was receiving extensive coverage in music magazines such as The Wire and online publications such as Pitchfork Media, with a regular feature entitled The Month In: Grime/Dubstep.

same problem as before. i think i actually wrote this sentence :)

Interest in dubstep grew significantly after BBC Radio 1 DJ Mary Anne Hobbs started championing the genre, beginning with a show devoted to it (entitled "Dubstep Warz") in January 2006.

and again, same problem... notability paranoia..

it's now a big, stable article. there is plenty of space to include all this stuff. the opening paragraph should include more references to other musics, more descriptive stuff regarding what this music actually sounds like.

e.g.

House music is a style of electronic dance music that originated in Chicago, Illinois, USA in the late 1970s and early 1980s. It was initially popularized in mid-1980s discothèques catering to the African-American,[1] Latino,[1] and gay[1][2][3] communities, first in Chicago, then in New York City and Detroit. It eventually reached Europe before becoming infused in mainstream pop & dance music worldwide. House music is strongly influenced by elements of soul- and funk-infused varieties of disco. House music generally mimics disco's percussion, especially the use of a prominent bass drum on every beat, but may feature a prominent synthesizer bassline, electronic drums, electronic effects, funk and pop samples, and reverb- or delay-enhanced vocals.

Psychedelic rock is a style of rock music that is inspired or influenced by psychedelic culture, or attempts to replicate the mind-altering experiences of hallucinogenic drugs.[1] It emerged during the mid 1960s among garage and folk rock bands in Britain and the United States. Psychedelic rock bridged the transition from early blues-based rock to progressive rock, art rock, experimental rock and heavy metal; and also drew on non-Western sources such as Indian music's ragas and sitars.

Drum and bass (commonly abbreviated to d&b, DnB, dnb, d'n'b, drum n bass, drum & bass, dNb), also known as jungle, is a type of electronic dance music which emerged in the late 1980s. The genre is characterized by fast breakbeats (typically between 165–185 bpm, occasional variation is noted in older compositions), with heavy sub-bass lines. Drum and bass began as an offshoot of the United Kingdom rave scene of the very early 1990s. Over the first decade of its existence, the incorporation of elements from various musical genres lent to many permutations in its overall style.

before i make any big edits, i'm very open to suggestions on how to improve the lede of the article! --Kaini (talk) 23:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

i'll try and come up with some thoughts on this soon. I think all the stuff you say is problematic because it's just establishing notability is important, and should stay in the lead, because it covers the important history. Our problem here is that the lead should be about 3 or 4 paragraphs long; currently it's too short. That's why it doesn't say much, it's not that stuff should be removed necessarily. A summary of what the genre sounds like would make for a good extra paragraph, and some more could be added to a history summary as well. - filelakeshoe 00:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

establishing notability is undoubtedly important, but approach this article as a casual reader rather than an editor, and your expectations of the initial paragraph become very different. people who edit make up a very small percentage of the people who visit wiki - and in the opening paragraph of any article, we should concentrate on summing up the content rather than establishing why x deserves to be an article. that sort of stuff can easily be incorporated after the ToC. --Kaini (talk) 00:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

also, the examples i cited earlier shouldn't be taken as is :P... i think they illustrate the sort of thing we need, but they could also do with improvement in themselves. our lede could definitely do with being longer, but better too. --Kaini (talk) 00:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Have added some more summarising to the lede, making 3 paragraphs now, feel free to edit and improve as you wish. One thing I have noticed is that FWD>> should definitely be mentioned in there somewhere. I also feel there should be something explaining dubstep's analogies to and influences from dub reggae, thus explaining the name "dubstep", but I don't really know how to start summarising that. - filelakeshoe 01:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

(de-indenting):

Dubstep is a genre of electronic music that has its roots in London's early 2000s UK garage scene. Musically, dubstep is distinguished by its dark mood and emphasis on bass. Dubstep tracks are generally produced at a tempo of around 140 beats per minute and have signature half-time rhythms usually comprising only one snare drum hit per bar, often on the third beat, which distinguish them from other four-to-the-floor rhythm based styles of electronic dance music such as house music, which usually have two hits accompanying the second and fourth kick drum. Often, the sense of rhythm in dubstep is propelled more by the bassline than by the percussive content.

oh, this is fucking top-notch! this is exactly the sort of 'what is it?' and 'what does it sound like?' synthesis i was on about. excellent stuff :) -Kaini (talk) 01:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Dubious

The statement (in the 1999-2002 section) claiming the name dubstep was coined by ammunition promotions was backed up by 3 citations, two of which I have removed because they said nothing of the sort![1][2] They both spoke of a website called "dubplate" set up by Ammunition in 2001, but not of Ammunition ever "coining" the term dubstep. The third source is a printed source which I don't currently have access to, so if someone does, please check it.. - filelakeshoe 01:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

i vaguely seem to recall some very early FWD>>/ammunition fliers i found somewhere on the net using the term - but there was also a magazine article on ammunition; semi-mea culpa, heh; my original edit was a bit WP:SYN and i reckon it got distorted over time with additions and removals. i see no need for a 'who coined the term', because that's a pretty fuzzy and difficult-to-define thing. --Kaini (talk) 01:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

well exactly, and it's kind of impossible to verify in a way. It could well have been some stoned 17 year old down an alleyway in Coulsdon who was the first person ever to call the music "dubstep", just ammunition and XLR8R were the first to write about it. We can verify that dubstep was being written about by various people as early as 2002, but not that any of them "coined" it per se. - filelakeshoe 01:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Dj Hatcha along with Sarah/Neil (Ammunition Promotions), coined the phase. Hatcha has said this several times on Dubstepforum.com. Look here at this link. Scroll down to find Hatcha's post. http://www.dubstepforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=905225 It can also be verified by Martin Clark if needed, as he was the only journalist documenting things back then. Sure, by Wiki rules its potentially a problem, as there's no other published proof than that article, but this is what it is. Seckle (talk) 20:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

length

i have to agree with TenPoundHammer's long tag to a degree; the article could maybe do with some pruning at this point - it is very dense in places. one thing that's apparent to me is that there are places in the article where there are longish (referenced) lists of artists, or publications, or similar things. these would be a good first thing to trim. another thing we should do is concentrate more on what this sounds like, and perhaps less on the history. in other words perhaps there's one section could do with expansion, and another with compression? of course the history is important, but what a person who has never heard dubstep is interested in is what it sounds like...

another thing that i just thought of... if we came up with some free/creative commons example audio, we could maybe merge the bass-propelled track example and the bass drop into one example. this would be nice and concise. thoughts? --Kaini (talk) 22:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the length is valid for sure. A few of us over the years have been actively trying to work on this article to get it to a place where as many facets can be covered without going overboard. I do see the point about intricate detail. Especially when you look at other pages on this site like Drum and bass, or UK garage. I'm going to try to help tighten things up slowly over the next months. We're at a good place now, thanks to everyones input. :) Seckle (talk) 20:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

External Links

I was wondering if someone could approve adding 84-weekly-genius-talkingpoints.com to the external links section? the site offers encyclopaedic material that will benifit readers. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlinked33 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

it's a blog. probably not, unless you can explain why it's worth including and notable. please familiarise yourself with WP:EL. Kaini (talk) 00:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

was wondering if someone would approve adding Dubstep.fm to the external links section? it is THE most popular internet radio stream for dubstep. it provides dubstep music to more people than any other stream on the web, even #2 or #3 hit on google when searching 'dubstep'. the genre is very internet driven and it would be a shame to not include such a valuable resource for dubstep music.

• Dubstep.fm A Popular Dubstep Music Community Featuring Live Internet Radio Broadcasts, Mix Set Archives, And Video Feeds.

--DopeLabs (Talk) 10:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't see what encyclopedic material that site offers that cannot be written into the article and sourced appropriately. ThemFromSpace 00:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi all, on the question of a Dubstep FM link, would it be justified by being a place that offers examples of Dubstep music? I mean, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to explain said topic,in the area of music, would an link to somewhere that you can hear that music not be beneficial to the article? I don't know, i'm just dropping it in as an idea.. comments? Darigan (talk) 09:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi folks, I've removed three links today, one to 'Your Dubstep', another to 'Dubstep Remixes' and finally one to 'UK Music'. 'Your Dubstep' to me, looked like a new website that was created off the cuff and added themselves to the external links section. 'UK Music' is a generic website. I removed both sites on the basis that there is no encyclopedic material whatsoever within these pages that are of any use to this Wikipedia page. 'Dubstep Remixes' page seemed to be a personal blog failing to give a greater understanding of the music in the what I felt, required depth needed. 94.169.160.200 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC).

Thanks for the cleanup! -- intgr [talk] 18:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Article Neutrality

There's been a claim that this Dubstep article is not neutral. Please discuss this further, and be specific about which sections. Thank you. Seckle (talk) 11:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The article over brostep seems hostile. Should also include Heavy Metal Dubstep, or Korn's "Narcissistic Cannibal" breach into mainstream Heavy Metal Dubstep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veracto1 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the above. It seems to be written by dubstep purists and although it uses citations, it is easy to be choosy with such things to promote one point of view, which seems to be what has been done here. Bear in mind that most readers will come here only ever having heard what people call 'brostep' and will question whether they've got the right article! There are plenty of sources with less biased info on brostep that I cba to list now. 109.153.225.172 (talk) 11:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

get off your arse and correct it if you think there is an issue instead of moaning. what some seem to forget is that others, like you, with an interest in the subject took the time to put what currently exists together, it's better than nothing, it offers a reasonable introduction, if you think it is lacking, improve it instead of being one of the thankless. --122.163.20.224 (talk) 14:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Bristol & Stafford

Don't forget the important sounds from these 2 important places defining (in my opinion) an more important kickstart for dubstep than anything London had to do with it. Don't just go London this London that! It's NOT just London. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.239.30 (talk) 22:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Seriously? How can you say a place like Croydon has nothing to do with dubstep? It's pretty much a fact dubstep originated there... 81.241.109.218 (talk) 21:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

If anyone wants to argue that Bristol had a pioneering role in the evolution of Dubstep, please edit the page according to your frame of reference. Obviously, its important that verifiable online references support your entries. There's no doubt that Bristol's played a big part in the sound, but you'd have to prove substantially that London/Croydon didn't have the pioneering role in its development. Seckle (talk) 06:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

When did Stafford come into it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.196.249.226 (talk) 13:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Please give us some sources in regards to Bristol and Stafford Dubstep, for the years 2000-2003. Thank you. Seckle (talk) 23:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Stafford? Don't be daft! Dubstep as a form of music can only be fully appreciated when played on a massive, bass-heavy soundsystem. So, why no mention of Iration Steppas, SubDub and Leeds? Outlook Festival provided a natural place for dubstep to develop and for the sound to change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.127.246 (talk) 16:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Revision/Heads up

So I deleted this, it has nothing whatsoever to do with dubstep music:

Moving into 2010, dubstep is now evolving into a new genre of music/dance called duckstepping. In this genre, the individual dances like a duck while listening to dubstep. Hence the term "duckstepping". It has become increasingly popular in the Columbia Heights neighborhood of Washington, DC.

If this dance warrants its own article, write it and link to it from the dubstep page, but otherwise WTF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.36.141.25 (talk) 18:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard of duckstepping and seems like it's just a stupid buzzword that bares no notability. Brostep on the otherhand...

Please be more specific about what you deleted before making a reference to it here in discussion. As far as Duckstepping and Brostepping, where are the references for these sub-genres? Sources? Seckle (talk) 06:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Brostepforum. Nuff said. 135.196.249.226 (talk) 15:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC) Sorry, but nothing's been said 135.196.249.226. This is a waste of time then. Congrats. Seckle (talk) 23:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

2009 into 2010

There's been some rather big developments in regards to the sound being more mainstream, with large collaborations outside of the genre itself. As this is now coming to years end, we should start talking about how to summarize 2009 up in a way that doesn't add to the size of this page, but rather reduces it to just the biggest and most important steps. Please discuss further here. Seckle (talk) 23:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

the early foundations anon added is good stuff. --Kaini (talk) 11:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

yes Kaini, the first 3 sections are really good now. There's not much I could take away or add from those. The 2005-2009 sections need a serious trimming though. There's far too much intricate release specific detail in those latter sections. I'm working on one draft, with a 2009 wrap up. More soon. Seckle (talk) 19:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I threw a few new things into the 2009 section, a few words about the newer, finer points of dubstep and its producers. Is anyone willing to go in on an article for Datsik with me? Let me know, thanks  :: RatedR ^{Leg of Lamb} 17:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Please make sure that whatever you edit into the end sections fits the verifiability guidelines. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sources#Sources Seckle (talk) 08:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Rhythm

"Often, the sense of rhythm in dubstep is propelled more by the bassline than by the percussive content."

Copyrighted vs free content samples

A moment ago I made an edit to the article, replacing the copyrighted audio sample File:Skream-Rutten-sample.ogg with a free equivalent, File:Blackleg - Smoke Test (excerpt).ogg (licensed under Creative Commons). However, this was reverted by user Kaini, with the message "The existing file was perfectly fine and the artist in the new one has WP:N issues"

• First of all, WP:N is completely irrelevant. Quoting: "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. They do not directly limit the content of articles" (emphasis mine)
• Second, Wikimedia's founding principles lists "free licensing of content" as one of its 5 principles.
• This is also strongly repeated by WP:FAIRUSE: "There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article or elsewhere on Wikipedia"
• And more specifically, the first criterium of the fair use policy is: "No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose."

Is this case special enough to warrant ignoring Wikimedia's founding principles and established Wikipedia copyright policies? I believe the free replacement file that I provided serves the purpose just as well. -- intgr [talk] 21:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

i was unaware of the CC status of the new sample (i should have checked), apologies for that. there has been a lot of WP:ADVERTy stuff added in the past, so my reaction was somewhat knee-jerk. feel free to revert my edit --Kaini (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, reverting back. :) -- intgr [talk] 21:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Using negative terms to describe dubstep

These terms aren't just negative, it's that they all have to do with dirtiness. I'm going to make this more specific.

74.72.250.193 (talk) 23:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Fabriclive 37

I really think a section about Fabric's decision to let Rusko and Caspa mix their 37th installment should be in the history; it's a fairly pivotal moment —Preceding unsigned comment added by Programkid (talk • contribs) 07:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. It was the first 'major' CD released at the time that was through a party that never had any input into Dubstep. People still bang on about it now. By the way, 1st track - Born to do it, last track, forever ;) 89.28.235.66 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC).

Promotional addition

This edit by 99.5.69.69 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is, to my view, inappropriate - it reads as being non-notable and promotional (note the edit summary here for example), and deals specifically with one activity, promoted through Facebook and not covered otherwise that the IP has presented. I've removed it several times now, and will not remove any further today - I'll remind the other editors of the three-revert rule as well. Please discuss this further before re-adding it, preferably with reliable sources to prove that it really is notable enough to be included here. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

agreed regarding the appropriateness of the edit, tony. this has been a problem on this article in the past. --Kaini (talk) 08:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't seem right:

The blogsphere has helped to push this music immensely! With websites such as hush-house.blogspot.com/.www.rub-a-dub-dubbb.com/,foreignbanguage.blogspot.com/, kidcityblog.com/,squeegiesounds.com/ and the millions of others.

Mutation etc,

I'm probably not the right person to do it, but should there be a section about dubstep's (fairly) recent mutation and influence on other emerging genres? Dubstep has spawned other sub genres related the more general UK Bass sound, through a fusion and evolution with/into house, garage, etc etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.168.208.113 (talk) 15:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Western Canada

I removed the last section of this article, as it was pretty badly written and seemed highly promotional. Shahid1618 (talk) 08:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Opening

what the hell does "tightly coiled production" mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.222.238 (talk) 00:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah that bit should be edited or removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.187.135 (talk) 11:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

it's a direct quotation from the allmusic cite, hence the quotation marks. it could definitely be improved though. --Kaini (talk) 16:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The removal of Dubstepforum from the Links section.

I'd like to point out my concern in regards to the removal of dubstepforum in the links section. I have just added it back today. Dubstepforum has been absolutely instrumental to the development of the community on a global scale. It is now the largest and oldest dubstep community on the internet. I think any further removal or changes to the links section should be handled as pure vandalism, as its clearly listed that no new links are to be added in that section. Three of the links listed there are very dubious additions. Seckle (talk) 22:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

by all means remove dubious links seckle, but please bear in mind WP:AGF! :) --Kaini (talk) 23:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Very Very Helpful for Genre Identity

I hate to bring it up, but a section concerning what Dubstep IS NOT would be of great use to current and future musicians alike, the development of the genre and to the birth of subgenres in the future. Be nice. Remember that hurting others only hurts us all! Please, folks, I know this isn't a nit-picky debate forum about who's the phattest at dropping it or who sux. That is why we trust that this can be a great place to hammer out what musical qualities would almost unanimously DISQUALIFY something from being considered Dubstep. Initiate Argument for the Greater Good... GO! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.234.5.136 (talk) 22:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that would be very helpful, you're entering into the elitist music blogger POV zone there, and wikipedia isn't supposed to prescribe viewpoints. I know there's a lot of noise on forums at the moment about dubstep/brostep etc. and that should stay where it is - on forums. If this drama makes it into reliable sources (i.e. gets written about by journalists or in music books, like the debate over what constitutes punk rock) then we can write about it here, but that probably won't happen for some time. - filelakeshoe 20:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Sentence regarding The Word Alive

The argument for the Word Alive inclusion is yet another unbelievable example of people who like rock music coming onto articles about non-rock genres and desparately trying to make out rock music has any relevance. It completely reduces many non-rock music articles to the status of a laughing stock. The person here arguing for Word Alive's inclusion really gives his lack of knowledge about anything non-rock away by talking about "hardcore" as some form of guitar music - yes I know some Americans call a certain type of punk like music hardcore but for anyone involved in post-mid80s dance/electronic music hardcore means the music made for and played at British and European raves from about 1990-93.A music which was most definitely a huge influence on dubstep unlike some anything guitar based. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.185.207 (talk) 09:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Had a read through the article, and to me the sentence "During mid-2010, metalcore bands such as The Word Alive began to incorporate dubstep pieces into their music, during areas within their songs such as bridges, breakdowns and climaxes." seems unnecessary. They are such a minor band who had no part to play in dubstep history and as such do not warrant a mention in a dubstep article, especially when you compare to the massive artists in the same section, e.g Magnetic Man and Chase & Status. I would remove it myself, but since I have not edited this article before I'd like to check for consensus with the regular editors. Cheers. Postrock1 (talk) 18:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

well, it was removed once by an editor, then added again by another (i tweaked the addition to remove unreferenced bands) - to be honest i'm in two minds; on the one hand it's pretty minor indeed, but on the other hand it is referenced, and i have seen evidence of other bands from extremely far-removed genres, such as Enter Shikari begin to incorporate this sort of thing into their music - put it down to the all-pervasive influence of the 'wobble bass', i guess :) - and we're already documenting the influence that dubstep has had on artists as disparate as Britney Spears and Radiohead in the article, after all.

perhaps a new section documenting influence on other genres - or would that make the article over-long? it's pretty long as it is.

weighing it up, i'm leaning towards removing it unless a larger influence on *core bands can be demonstrated, but i am also very interested in what other editors have to say on the matter. Kaini (talk) 18:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Well just because it is referenced doesn't mean it belongs in an article tbh, of course it may well be relevant in the The Word Alive article (although note that the word dubstep is not mentioned once there, despite it being a reasonably lengthy article). The section is called "mainstream influence" yet the band only just hit the top 100 in the US charts. I think the Britney reference should stay, she is a multi-platinum selling artist after all, and the day that song was uploaded half the comments on youtube were talking about dubstep. Didn't Rusko produce for her? Radiohead im not 100% sold on, but if others think it should be included I wouldn't argue. For comparison, googling radiohead+dubstep = 1.2 million [3], "britney spears"+dubstep= 3.2 million [4] while the word alive+dubstep has only 197,000 [5]. Even totally irrelevant terms like "the pope"+dubstep or kangaroo+dubstep get more hits [6], [7]. Postrock1 (talk) 20:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

good points. i've invited the editor who re-added the statement to weigh in on the matter; if he doesn't, i'm inclined to remove. Kaini (talk) 21:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any reason for it to be removed, it's properly sourced and The Word Alive is certainly not a "minor band", they're playing Warped Tour and even by next album I'm not doubtful that they'll be the next Bullet for My Valentine. The hype these guys received from even their EP was a big impact on metal releases for that year, a full-length really make that much a difference on their universal notability and might I also add that this is the only thing the article implies on dubstep ever being in any type of rock music, which is (yeah…) pretty darn notable. And PS to: Kaini, this has nothing to do with "hardcore music", The Word Alive, nor Woe, Is Me are not "hardcore", they don't demonstrate one thing of '80s east-coast straight edge punk bands like Sick of It All which actually is what hardcore is. Sorry, I just had to let you know, it's a peeve of mine. Lol. • GunMetal Angel 21:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

On the flip side, being properly sourced is not an argument for inclusion. Following the same line of logic I could add a sentence saying "Benga likes Family Guy" [8], which is sourced but of course is completely irrelevant to the history of dubstep. 1. Over 100 bands play warped tour every year. 2. whether it was a big impact on metal releases is irrelevant, this is the dubstep article not the heavy metal music article. 3. are they really the first? as per Kaini, look up Enter Shikari. 4. the The Word Alive article calls them metalcore, which is a subgenre of hardcore. 5. straight edge =/= hardcore.

The dubstep article covers 100s of artists over 10+ years. The The Word Alive article covers one artist over 3 years, yet not one mention of dubstep. As you yourself are the creator of said article, this seems an odd oversight to make, for someone who is so convinced as to their importance within the dubstep genre. I repeat my previous point, the section is called "mainstream influence". This band just scraped into the top 100 on albums and have not had any hit singles. Postrock1 (talk) 23:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Did I say what straight edge is or regarded it as being hardcore? No I didn't. I know what straight edge is. So to say to that Maybe you tend to misread my comments or you're just expecting way too much out of one band or not finding importance out of one band or both. We're not saying that a band needs to have a radio-played single. And for the sake of other comments you're not exactly tackling that well; I also never said that TWA was the first band to incorperate dubstep into their music; what I did say was that they're the only band on the article that is rock-related. And obviously it has notation on this not being the heavy metal music article, otherwise The Word Alive can fit in every other band on that page having rough-riffs, guitar solos and blast beats down in the later heavier section. They are – so far – the only metal band to have dubstep in their music which makes it notable upon the statements I made, add-in, the reason why its in "mainstream influence" is hence the fact that if Brittany Spears can incorperate dubstep into her music, then TWA have just as much as a right to as well. I'm gonna stop you before you try to bash me with your "fame" excuse; because honestly, by WP standards, several have reviewed the TWA article and approved it under notability. If an article is notable, if even one inclusion among an article for a band within a type of music that has never done this before and is notable on the deemed site's guideline, then yes the entry is pretty much right up this alley. If Rusko combined his dubstep and classical instrumentation together into something never heard before, then I can't argue that that wouldn't be something to ignore in a classic music article. • GunMetal Angel 00:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

no-one's doubting how big a band the word alive are; they have a fairly well-referenced article and notability is clearly established there. the problems are a) how large an influence dubstep has had on the band - so far i see one sentence in one article; it's not like rolling stone or pitchfork are hyping them as 'revolutionary dubstep/metalcore crossover band, the word alive', and b) whether the influence of dubstep on one metalcore band is notable enough to warrant inclusion in the article. anyway, you have 20,000 edits on wiki; more than three times the amount of edits i have - i don't want to seem like i'm breaching WP:AGF here, but you should have an idea how things work here by now. i think you should be able to demonstrate more influence from dubstep onto the genre in question. unless it's a major influence like is demonstrated in the dubstep article for pop music/R'n'B (two britney songs, katie b, and more), it doesn't really deserve inclusion in my opinion.

as for the genre; well, my personal opinion on that is that if you spend too much time arguing over which particular pigeonhole to slot a band into, you're heading down a blind alley. when people ask me what type of music i listen to, i generally tend to reply 'good music' - and that incorporates everything from captain beefheart through crass/dead kennedys to radiohead through autechre. Kaini (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

"I also never said that TWA was the first band to incorperate dubstep into their music". Forgive me, is that not what you said here? "and might I also add that this is the only thing the article implies on dubstep ever being in any type of rock music, which is (yeah…) pretty darn notable". Unless I misunderstand you. Anyway I won't answer the rest as we're going off topic, we can chat on my talk page if you so wish. I was going to say pretty much what Kaini just said, but he said put it more eloquently than I could so I'll leave it at that! Postrock1 (talk) 01:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

@Porstrock, you did misunderstand me, I said it's the only thing mentioned in the article that has a selection of dubstep pieces featured in anything rock related. And @Kaini, me knowing how things works on here does not at all hobble or hinder a simple discussion of why I believe a band should be included as mentioned on the article here, and your comments do seem to "branch good faith" as you've taken the liberty to try to attack me on my experience as it seems? Opinions of what is notable or not notable does not have anything to do with the amount of experience you have on a website that basis something on notability hence the fact that I'm butting heads with two others that have opinions. Just like me. Just because I'm not 100% agreeing doesn't mean I don't know how things work on here. And to add one more point, there really shouldn't be any uncertainty. Dubstep is a type of electronic music is it not? Have any of you seen the electronica article? There's a full section regarding its fusion with post-hardcore bands for geez sake and mentions the band's success one by one upon whom have tackled this style, yet you're complaining at me for one simple sentence & even speaking off into things that really have nothing to do with this situation at all like how many edits I have? Now this is getting a little strange, all I wanted was just some talk without it seeming like an argument as well as some sense. - GunMetal Angel 16:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I had a look at the Electronica article, and there is indeed a section about a fusion with post-hardcore. There they talk about several bands and have sources which discuss the fusion in more depth. Missing from that section, though included in the "main" article about it, are our old friends Enter Shikari. Their debut album got to number 4 in the charts and everyone was talking about the fusion of styles when it was released; however, that article in general is quite poor, many sentences are unsourced and it has a "multiple issues tag", which is always lovely to see when researching something. If I felt the need to I could easily root through my collection of music magazine and find several articles documenting the electronic/post-hardcore crossover. And anyway, as you are someone who's been here far far far longer than I have I'm sure I don't need to insult your intelligence by quoting WP:OTHERSTUFF at you.

I'll repeat my previous point, which I see you have not answered. If the dubstep/whatevercore hybrid approach of The Word Alive is that notable, why is it not mentioned in their article? The dubstep article covers 100s of artists, therefore we have to be quite selective over what information goes into it. The The Word Alive article covers only one artist, and one who had not been around for very long, thus there is plenty of space to write about its genre-defying sound, but you have not done this. Why? Postrock1 (talk) 20:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

in addition to that, i'd like you to read what i said again; i said whilst not wanting to appear to breach (not branch, that wouldn't make sense) WP:AGF - in plain english, i was saying that i understood your motivations; we're all here to make an encyclopaedia. and i don't think that expecting you to understand WP:RS and the process of forming consensus on a talk page is unreasonable; and this expectation is partially based on your edit count. your claims that you're being attacked are, frankly, silly. Kaini (talk) 21:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

This is one of my most hated Wikipedia policies ever, but WP:PROMINENCE could be good here... what this basically means is that since this article is about dubstep, a source whose main subject is dubstep has to mention TWA for them to be notable enough to be mentioned - not the other way round. If there's a source whose main subject is TWA and that says they have dubstep influences or whatev, that can be included in the TWA article. There simply isn't enough space here to namedrop every notable band and artist who use half-step rhythms and wobble basslines. - filelakeshoe 00:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

in the interests of balance, that would probably affect the radiohead mention as well - something that seems to have met with some... um... resistance from editors, anon and otherwise, if you look at the edit history. Kaini (talk) 00:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the radiohead mention should probably be removed, but think of this as a weak delete vote haha. I can certainly hear the influence but the Pitchfork, Rolling Stone, BBC Music and AllMusic reviews don't mention it and the wiki article for The King of Limbs doesn't mention it either, so I'm not sure if we should include it here. Postrock1 (talk) 12:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess there appears to be some sort of consensus. Unless someone objects, I will remove the "the word alive" reference in 24h. I'm still undecided on the radiohead reference, so I shall leave it for now. Postrock1 (talk) 13:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Reference formatting

I had a glance at the references used here and I can see a number of issues. There are a number of inconsistencies, most obviously using three different date formatting systems (compare refs 5 and 18) The linking of work/publisher is also inconsistant, with some linked some not (see 37, 38, 40, 42 etc). We have to decide on which system to use for both of these issues. I propose using the "5 June 2009" format for dates, as the 2008-11-12 format always confuses me! For linking of work/publisher I personally prefer linking at every occurrence. What does everyone else think? doomgaze (talk) 16:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

myself and two other editors wrote a large chunk of the article back in 2007 (mostly working off the back of a few wire magazine articles and martin clark's pitchfork columns) - and iirc we all used the awesome makeref to generate the references. but as is always the case, other editors added stuff since then - this, i think is the cause of a lot of the inconsistencies at least as regards date. i like the "5 june 2009" date format as well - it's less ambiguous. i've no opinion one way or the other really on the linking within refs question - i suppose linking every time gives a more consistent look, so go for it! Kaini (talk) 20:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

after another bit of overhauling, i'm tempted to put the article up for WP:GAR again - which i think it's going to fail. we should not look at this as a bad thing - it will provide valuable and impartial feedback on what needs to be fixed. Kaini (talk) 23:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah sounds like a good idea. I'm 99% sure it will fail though, as I've been working on the refs I've seen a lot of "violations" of WP:OVERLINK and WP:REPEATLINK and all sorts of other lil problems in the prose — I'm leaving it as is for now since we need a decent re-write or two anyway. doomgaze (talk) 23:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Radiohead

I don't for an instant agree that the newest Radiohead release contains any dubstep influences. The sourced article is a review which makes one reference, offhand, to dubstep, regarding one of its many tracks. Not even the "wobble" - incorrectly credited as being essential to the dubstep sound - is present on a single one of those tracks. 98.223.180.107 (talk) 09:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, I've moved your section to the bottom of the talk page, and they normally go in chronological order. Regarding Radiohead, I agree that it should be removed. If you read the recent talk section titled "sentence regarding the word alive" above, I myself suggested that radiohead be removed (postrock1 was my old username). There are a few tracks that sound a bit like Burial, but as you say critics haven't exactly gone RADIOHEAD DO DUBSTEP, MASS HYSTERIA EXPECTED; most have not mentioned the genre at all. Unless someone objets i'll remove the reference within 24h. doomgaze (talk) 10:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

2009-2011 section

There is a lot of potential information missing regarding dubstep's recent developments... this section goes on a lot about chart hitters and listing pop artists who use half-step rhythms (which I hardly think is relevant), but there's no real mention of:

• The divide in styles within dubstep, there really isn't very much about this, some maintained the experimental feel, some went into the brostep jump up screech wobble stuff, I know this has been around for way longer than the last 2 years but there's no mention of Caspa/Rusko/Borgore or anyone and I'm sure there must be some sources out there, about how they're basically dubstep marmite.. then there's the stadium sound where Skrillex and Chase and Status are pulling a lot of strings.. I dunno what music journalists call these things. It seems to be pretty commonplace to add "-step" to any word you fancy nowadays.
• Drumstep (which really needs a DRV by now) and how dubstep and drum and bass are basically coming together.
• Also dubstep is having a marked influence on internet culture now, ever notice how every internet meme has a dubstep remix with over a million views on youtube? Again, I'm sure I've seen articles written about this.

Basically I think there are more relevant things than people who aren't even dubstep artists using wobble basslines. I'll get looking for sources later on (it's late now), if anyone else wants to add anything then please do... - filelakeshoe 02:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

totally agree. the divergence between the style initiated by caspa and rusko, which has been extended into a whole new 'brostep' thing by people like skrillex and borgore (awful as it is imo), and the developments/hybridization by people like 2562, martyn, or shackleton (some of which i suppose barely qualifies as dubstep at all) is something that needs attention. WRT your second point, house is also kinda converging onto the same point... and dubstep is by FAR the most subscribed to subreddit when it comes to electronic music, to pick something that illustrates that third point. Kaini (talk) 02:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Interesting point about house.. you're getting into my territory there :D From my point of view there's just a lot of 4x4 stuff taking influences from various styles with a lot of bass, no one knows what to call it, it's not bassline, speed garage or fidget although it's clearly influenced by all 3 (and also more recently UK funky), and it's not dubstep because it's not halfstep. Niche and fidget evolved independently of dubstep, it's only thanks to the brostep wobble thing and artists like Figure, Will Bailey and Calvertron that they're now thrown into the same ballpark. I guess this area of music is just really, really small, I wouldn't realise that cos I'm in it :) - filelakeshoe 02:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

personally, i think the most noticable interpolation of dubstep into other genres is the sub-bass... sub has always been an element present in genres outside dubstep, but lately the idea of big hefty basslines in the sub-200hz range seems to have become a big deal - via dubstep, its housier 4/4ier cousin funky, and hybrids. the sub has been properly subsumed into the mainstream of electronic music. i get the feeling that if we want to write about this, blackdown will once again be our go-to WP:RS guy on the subject. Kaini (talk) 03:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

UKF was really an offshoot of grime, it was an attempt to make oldskool grime riddims more listenable and club-friendly (this is a great example of a proto-track, imagine this with a half-step rhythm and you've got a grime track). Sub-bass has always been around in dance music as a production technique, I'd say it's definitely had that influence on pop music, perhaps a little on more classic sounding house as well.. but as far as garage/trance/techno/dnb are concerned there's no real change. I more wonder whether you could say that this kinda stuff comes from more recent, heavier dubstep, or whether it's just a coincidence caused by our beloved softsynth Massive... - filelakeshoe 03:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the majority of the above, only problem will be finding the sources to reference it. All too many times I've started writing about -insert dubstep artist name- to realise there's not enough material to pass WP:GNG. Darn guidelines. As for offline sources I wouldn't even know where to begin. Do any magazines cover dubstep? The whole scene revolves around forums, which are hardly reliable sources. doomgaze (talk) 23:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

this passes WP:RS, and has been so, so useful in the past (as an aside, in an AfD i participated in before, someone disputed this claiming 'pitchfork is just a zine', lol). add in some terms at the end and you're good to go. as for dead tree media, The Wire Magazine writes pretty frequently about dubstep, and when there was an initial drive to improve this article a couple of years ago, i based great chunks of it off their articles. sadly, my subscription has run out :( Kaini (talk) 23:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

That section could put this articles GA status at risk --Guerillero | My Talk 19:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

howso? - filelakeshoe 19:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Wholly agree with what you guys just said. While everyone may not like what's been happening in the scene, it has nonetheless happened, and has changed significantly. The quick sentence under the Wobble section sums this up very briefly. Though hard to cite, it really should be mentioned the increasingly aggressive, more severe wobble poular dubstep now has (and yeesh, almost attached to the name, sadly.) It should also be noted in the article the greater importance of remixes, which definitely have drawn a lot of attention to the genre, while making it more accessible. I know a ton of people hate him or whatever, but an easy to use example could be Skrillex, for his use of the remix to intervene downbeat parts of the songs, the buildup, then drop, which has become more and more a stronger fixed structure. He also is very popular, and through his name brought a lot of attention to the genre, whether people who've been with the genre like it or not. I don't know how, but the influence of greater blog coverage would be useful - but I'm not sure whether you can just say that, as I have no idea how that could be cited unless an article was found. Zayniac (talk) 06:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Drumstep

I've incubated the NPOV bits of the deleted Drumstep article (which wasn't very much, it was deleted because it was just an attack at anyone who dares use the word) at User:Filelakeshoe/drumstep. From my point of view the term definitely seems to be in wide enough use now, but I can't find much substantial source material, just a few passing mentions like this (lol). If anyone sees any good articles please throw them in! - filelakeshoe 22:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

I've just got the article semi-protected for two weeks due to the persistant vandalism, hopefully should keep the vandals away till then. doomgaze (talk) 00:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

sadly, this is something you'll get painfully used to if you have the article on your watchlist. Kaini (talk) 01:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Possible addition to the Dubstep page of Wiki

I was wondering if you could place a link to www.squittybubbler.com at the bottom of the article in regards to dubstep.

I own/run and modify Squitty Bubbler and have been on the scene since 2008, reporting, analysing and discussing new and up and coming talent in the international dubstep world.

Please let me know if this is a possibility, we would love nothing more than to be associated with the Wiki article of Dubstep.

Testoltd (talk) 10:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Mon 16th May 2011

hi, testoltd, and thanks for having the courtesy to ask! unfortunately under wikipedia's external links policy, that would be discouraged as excessively promotional. Kaini (talk) 16:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Meis2steph11, 7 June 2011

I wish permission to change the song used as a demonstration of the bass drop, because it is not very good. I recommend the drop off of the song "Scatta"- Skrillex or the drop off of the "UKF Dubstep tutorial. Meis2steph11 (talk) 12:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it's not the most obvious indication of a bass drop and I welcome other editors opinions. But please not either of the above, if we're going to have something recent I think "Smack Your Bitch Up" by Benga is a very clear example. doomgaze (talk) 12:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.- Happysailor ^(Talk) 09:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Popular blog sites promoting dubstep

New blog sites promoting dubstep have recently exploded throughout the internet. Sites such as Stereocraftmusic (http://stereocraftmusic.com) and Electrokill (http://www.electrokill.info/) have been set up to further expand dubsteps popularity. Bekkers1029 (talk) 12:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid we will not be adding these as links (if that was your intention). See our external links policy. doomgaze (talk) 13:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Dubstepforum.com

I have removed this from the external links as it is reported as a "reported attack page" by Google. I don't see how this can remain as a link under WP:ELNO, but I am always happy to listen to explanations. I am bringing this here since it had a hidden note next to it asking for non-removal without discussion.--SabreBD (talk) 10:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Assuming you mean dubstepforum.com, because it's extremely notable, one of the keystones in the development of dubstep as a genre (in the 21st century, the internet does what record shops and similar establishments did in the past), and mentioned in the article (in the lede in fact) with a reference. I assume by "attack page" you mean the forums contains one out of a million threads that criticises this Wikipedia article. That is not grounds for excluding the link. There was some braindead proposal that tried to censor criticism of Wikipedia by disallowing such links a few years back that was soundly rejected. - filelakeshoe 10:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh. Trying to get onto the page through google gives me a "www.dubstepforum.com contains malware. Your computer might catch a virus if you visit this site." message. Have the site been hacked or something? doomgaze (talk) 11:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't get that.. does it give any further info on how? - filelakeshoe 12:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I deliberately wasn't giving the full address and no, its not about it attacking Wikipedia, but the fact is that it seems to have malware. It is possible you do not get this (if you are using google) because your security setting are not fully on. In any case, whatever the importance of the page, we cannot link if we have evidence it has malware.--

Dubstepforum is the largest global online community for dubstep, going back to 2005. Its notability is not disputed, and should you request, I can supply you with more than a handful of magazine and newspaper published articles to support this. I also would like to point out that there's some big double standards in saying that "discussion forum's" should be avoided as per wiki rules, yet you removed dubstepforum.com, but left another discussionforum website GetDarker without questioning its notabilty at all? How is that an appropriate response? Either you question all of the external links for notability or you should leave them all, and lock that whole section down permanently. I've spent a long time editing and contributing to this page, and this sort of knee-jerk response from some of the admins in Electronica is a borderline, power trip. Yes, there was a malware attack. Dubstepforum has over 2.5million+ posts and over 60,000 members, so you can bet that somewhere along the line of its usage, it will get malware, as all big traffic discussion group sites do. Its part of the territory. I understand that malware should be taken seriously, but permanent removal of the site as an appropriate response? Come on guys.... Seckle (talk) 07:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC) SabreBD (talk) 14:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Abcdefetus2011, 22 June 2011

Under History or Origins:

One often under recognized influence to Dubstep, is the song Revolution 9 by The Beatles. It contains several similar elements to early Dubstep songs.

Abcdefetus2011 (talk) 04:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Request lacks specificity. Please suggest text and provide a reliable source to support it. Rivertorch (talk) 04:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Shackleton - Naked

Don't get me wrong, i'm very impressed by this article, it's very informative and has some very detailed info that is brilliant. But i really don't agree with the chosen sample for bass drops. I feel it doesn't represent the intensity of the post-drop section commonly found in dubstep, and it also doesn't fit very well with the statement about the percussion pausing, as there isn't even any percussion before the drop. I just feel that there could have been a much more fitting choice out there? Speighticus (talk) 23:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

well, consensus seems to be going that way, and the terrain has changed kinda drastically since that audio example was added to the article. so i'm probably going to change it to something a bit more up-to-date - i'm thinking a koan sound remix. Kaini (talk) 02:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Well i'm very new to the whole Wikipedia editing stuff, so i don't know what sort of stuff we're able to put up, otherwise i'd make some suggestions Speighticus (talk) 08:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

For what we're allowed to use, see Wikipedia:Non-free content (basically we can use a 20-30 second low quality sample for analysis purposes). Be careful with koan sound, alot of their stuff is 100 bpm. doomgaze (talk) 09:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Not really. The article you link to states: "There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article or elsewhere on Wikipedia". One of the requirements is: "No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose"

Finding a CC-licensed replacement sample is certainly possible, thus using non-free content is not justified. There are several places to find free content: Jamendo, ccMixter and other sources linked from CC website.

Not all Creative Commons licenses are allowed. If the license contains a "No Derivative Works" (ND) clause, it cannot be used. -- intgr [talk] 14:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

You've sort of got me there. I basically just summarised the more specific Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music samples) but after a bit of googling it does look like there are free-content dubstep songs out there, for example the stuff on DemonDubz. doomgaze (talk) 15:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't even think we need a fair use sample to demonstrate a bass drop. There are probably thousands of brostep massive preset tunes hanging around on soundcloud for free download! - filelakeshoe 20:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, "free download" might not be good enough -- we need an explicit license from the author that allows Wikipedia to redistribute the file. Thankfully Creative Commons licenses are getting pretty popular. -- intgr [talk] 02:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

No mention of Skrillex?

I should preface by saying I am no fan of Skrillex and do not even like the genre dubstep. I, however, noticed that Skrillex is not once mentioned in the article, and is quite obviously one of the (if not the) most influential dubstep artists. I think he should at least be mentioned in one of the later history sections. Voyaging (talk) 16:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Like it or not Skrillex has become one of the biggest DJs in the entire genre. 97.77.49.205 (talk) 22:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Skrillex is NOT a DJ and does not perform or create dubstep. Skrillex has even admitted in interviews that he is not dubstep. Skrillex is not taken seriously in any country other than the United States. Residentadvisor.net gave his EP a 1.5/5 rating. Before claiming Skrillex is one of the most influential dubstep artist, please show examples of dubstep artists who have been influenced by skrillex. Applecore91 (talk) 03:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

That Skrillex is not taken seriously outside the US is utter nonsense. In his UK tour this year he sold out Bristol Academy and KOKO,[9] and his music is very widely known in Central Europe at the moment. I disagree that he's "the most influential" especially in terms of the genre's development, but he should be mentioned, as a key figure in the division of "pop-dubstep" and what we now call "future garage" which just used to be called dubstep. Especially since the dubstep community can't shut up about him. I just read this article just now for instance[10] - filelakeshoe 10:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

He's DEFINITELY a key figure when it comes to introducing dubstep to the mainstream. But he isn't mentioned in that section, which I think he should.--81.231.108.23 (talk) 23:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I think this interview with Skream validates Skrillex's place in the genre.

Moore's self-image tallies with the view of British dubstep star Skream, who has stood up for Skrillex against more-underground-than-thou snobs. "His production is so fucking clean but twisted," Skream says, "but the real thing is how he's shaken everything up without even knowing it. He's almost done to dubstep what me and Benga did to garage."

He should definitely be included. --TravisBernard (talk) 16:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Skrillex is not future garage, future garage is a term applied to burial, club root, swarms, ie. uk garage that sounds kinda dubstep but sticks closer to the typical uk garage beat. Skrillex is not really dubstep either, I would argue that his music has more in common with electro house than dubstep but for arguments sake I would say that he is part of a splinter genre that some, who are more into the older "deeper" styles of dubstep, call 'brostep'. Dubstep, as what it used to be and sound like has little or nothing in common with skrillex although I will concede that his sound developed out of "brostep" sounds that in turn developed out of some of the less minimal more energetic dubstep. I'm not saying this because I have a problem with his music but it is actually a different genre, it has a different sound, different stylistic tendencies, a whole different aesthetic. I think that he should be included somewhere but in a section explaining how this new style has emerged from dubstep and how it is different. Also I do not use the unfortunate term 'brostep' here in a demeaning way, I simply don't know what else to call it. I think these might be useful sources or reading for anyone considering this issue:Rusko's thoughts on brostep, What is Brostep?, --124.184.170.5 (talk) 09:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC) (I don't have an account, sorry)

I was never saying Skrillex was future garage, but that around the time of him emerging the scene had split (into "future garage" and "brostep"), like the hardcore scene in the early 90s did in a way. There are crossovers between brostep and electro house now, but brostep is a derivative of dubstep, not of electro house, it started with Rusko and Caspa. It will take time for Skrillex's sound to get its own name; in 2007 before people started talking about "future garage" Burial's music was called dubstep. Early dubstep from 2002-3 sounds very very similar (just more lo-fi) to tracks by those future garage artists you mentioned. The half-time rhythm only started being mandatory a few years later. - filelakeshoe 12:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

WTF yes Skrillex is a DJ who creates and preforms Dubstep get you facts straight! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.194.120.246 (talk) 03:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I support the addition of Skrillex to the pop-dubstep section. He brought dubstep to the mainstream with Cinema, Scary Monsters & Nice Sprites, First Of The Year and Scatta. He's relevant, sources indicate - and his (subjective) quality as an artist and performer has nothing to do with his role in the dubstep scene. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.165.23 (talk) 20:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

wow, im stunned by the stupid comments in this thread.. sorry... of cause Skrillex is Dubstep. and no he didnt come out of the brostep wave. he released the My Name is Skrillex EP way before anyone used the term brostep... and btw, for any of you who cant clearly see the differences between electro house and dubstep dont discuss genres. House is 128 bpm and Dubstep is 140 half time, end of discussion, the sound and synths is a whole other story. Skrillex should really be mentioned as one of the pioneers because he helped define the sound of the American Dubstep wave, which sounds very different from the older London Dubstep sound like Skream and Benga, but its Dubstep nonetheless. really we should start categorizing Dubstep subgenres instead of talking about what is dubstep and what is not. right know we have all kinds of dubstep which sounds very different all simply labeled "dubstep". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.59.46.70 (talk) 22:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Some additional features:

I don't have sources for this, call it original research, but something I have noticed is widespread use of Dorian modes and Locrian modes. Songs mostly in minor keys still have a tendency to use the intervals of minor 2nds, diminished 5ths, and major 6ths. This could easily be due to novice producers/composers just writing using D to D or B to B with all natural(white) keys, respectively. Modal Jazz structure is often common (e.g. "So What" by Miles Davis), as well as songs based on 12-bar blues (though these rarely rely entirely on the blues scale). Again, I don't really have sources, but I play piano and bass along to dubstep radio frequently and have noticed these general trends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.229.191 (talk) 09:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Small edit request for "See Also" section

I think http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-dubstep should be added to the See Also section. It would help get the article some attention and much needed edits. 97.77.49.205 (talk) 22:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

its always been a part of the page 69.225.142.123 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC).

Why no mention of Rusko?

Rusko has been producing dubstep since 2006, and his hit cockney thug was a smash hit. I believe Rusko was very influential in the progression of Dubstep and deserves to be mentioned as a forefather for the kind of Dubstep that is popular today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.86.119.102 (talk) 03:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps there could be a "Decline of Dubstep" section which could begin with a discussion of Rusko? There are many notable references that could support this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.228.127 (talk) 01:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Article semi-defaced?

It looks as though someone tried to hide something "funny" under early listeners: "Dubstep in it's early days only known to few, it's audience was mainly gingers with no souls and minor ethnic minorities. Coppercab claims he was the first person to listen to Dubstep, this hypothesis is/was constantly ranted in many of his videos. He believes..."

The first bit is the part I was talking about, the second just seemed repetitive to me. As I don't know how to rollback that edit, can someone else do it? 98.238.178.93 (talk) 22:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

it's already reverted, you should clear your cache. Kaini (talk) 22:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Characteristics

issues with OR in this section should probably be addressed considering the article's GA status. Stylistic/musicological analysis of this nature needs RS cites. Semitransgenic (talk) 00:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

"Spacious vibe"

The part I just removed about the "spacious vibe" is described properly here[11] [12]. Would like to add back or paraphrase that "The music replicates the moment in dub reggae when the sound engineer phases out the melody and vocals, leaving a wide empty space between the treble and bass" quote somewhere, but it's not for the rhythm section. - filelakeshoe 14:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

the quote from Kode9 kinda covers that, though. Kaini (talk) 14:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

explain it better for the average reader, some of us understand such vernacular, don't assume everyone does. Additionally, the emphasis on "space" (heavy use of reverb and delay) stems directly from dub-reggae, so mentioning that would be useful. --Semitransgenic (talk) 14:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Examples for Bass Wobble Section

Someone who knows how to code the example songs should put in examples of a bass wobble in a dubstep song. I don't think people who have never heard dubstep would know what the description given is trying to get at. Some suggestions would be Lick The Rainbow by Mord Fustang or Do You by Anne Savage & BK. I'm not sure if there's a copyright status issue with that though. --Falowane6 (talk) 00:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

the problem with this

the problem with this, and the section on drops as well, is that things have changed so much in the last couple of years. a wobble now isn't the same thing as it was when the majority of this article was written. a drop isn't the same thing now as it was then either. the entire genre is a different thing now that it's become kinda huge. which leaves us with an interesting little bit of cognitive dissonance to deal with. Kaini (talk) 01:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Vandalized

The first sentence has been defaced. Someone with clearance, please revert. 74.192.112.178 (talk) 15:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 5 November 2011

hello, i would like to change some of the songs in the description as "dj fresh- louder" is not a dubstep i know its a stupid request but it really annoys me to see songs like that classes as Dubstep.

Shaun-reeve (talk) 21:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Not done: The source [13] quotes:

• Louder, which features in the new Lucozade Sport Lite advertising campaign, has been hailed as the biggest dubstep anthem of all time.

The guide for inclusion in wikipedia is Wikipedia:Verifiability and as we have a source to support it. If you can find a WP:RS which disputes this then we may be able to include it.--Salix (talk): 21:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

This is an article on Dubstep but...

No where on this entire page have I seen anything mentioning Dub or Steppers music, which originated in Jamaica long before the 2000s. There goes the English trying to take all the credit again... "Dub has influenced many genres of music, including rock (most significantly the sub-genre of post-punk and other kinds of punk[5]), pop,[6] hip hop,[5] disco, and, later, house,[7] techno,[7] ambient,[7] and trip hop.[7] Dub has become a basis for the genres of jungle/drum'n'bass[8][9] and dubstep.[10]" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dub_music) Wiki against wiki, who's correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.212.72.227 (talk) 18:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Dub wasn't a direct influence on Dubstep. If anything it was a direct ascendance from Garage but more importantly, an amalgamation of lots of different types of music, a bit of a mongrel if you will. Kidlvr (talk) 10:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 15 November 2011

I'd like to add and remove some things from stylistic origins, as they are wrong.

Clappa2z (talk) 17:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

What things and why are they wrong? - filelakeshoe 17:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. CTJF83 18:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 16 November 2011

Please change "Brostep is a post-dubstep trend that has recently received increasing exposure, with the American producer Skrillex becoming something of a figurehead for the scene. Brostep has been described variously as “dubstep with more anger to it" and "Americanized, garbage dubstep." Unlike traditional dubstep production styles that emphasise sub-bass content, brostep accentuates the middle register and features "robotic fluctuations and metal-esque aggression."

to

"San Francisco based Dubstep/Bass music DJ/Producer Kozee first coined the termon her Twitter account @Kozee as a joke. Brostep is a post-dubstep trend that has recently received increasing exposure, with the American producer Skrillex becoming something of a figurehead for the scene. Brostep has been described variously as “dubstep with more anger to it" and "Americanized, garbage dubstep." Unlike traditional dubstep production styles that emphasise sub-bass content, brostep accentuates the middle register and features "robotic fluctuations and metal-esque aggression."

Please change this to attribute the name or term "Brostep" to its originator, the San Francisco based Dubstep/Bass music DJ/Producer Kozee. It is widely accepted in Dubstep circles and in the online community that Kozee first coined the phrase on her Twitter account @Kozee as a joke.

http://dubstepmassive.net/2010/11/what-is-brostep/

There are several other sources that site this as well.

Rwb4422 (talk) 01:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

that's hearsay, we can only consider extending attribution in the case of providing a source that complies with WP:RS. Blogs are generally not reliable sources for such information. Semitransgenic (talk) 01:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Can we at least remove the post-dubstep bit? It's still current. Kidlvr (talk) 11:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Fix typo

In the section "Post-dubstep", there is a typo "... and other froms of underground ...". That should read "... and other forms of underground ..."

--Discovery4 (talk) 09:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Done --Jnorton7558 (talk) 15:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

DJ Fresh - Louder: Not Dubstep

Hi, apologies if I do anything to abuse Wikipedia protocol but I would like to request that the line referencing DJ Fresh's 'Louder' as the first UK Dubstep No. 1 single be edited or removed. Whilst obviously borrowing heavily from dubstep sounds, it is not a dubstep. It also doesn't meet the criteria of dubstep described in the article itself. 'House / Dubstep crossover' may be more appropriate.

If you listen to the track it quite clearly has a house (electro-house to be precise) with distorted wobbles over the top. Dubstep has a syncopated, two-step beat due it's roots in grime & UK Garage. It requires this beat and the 'wobble' to be considered dubstep. Without the beat it's house; without the wobble, it's probably grime or garage.

The source you have listed (The Daily Star) is not reputable; it is a tabloid newspaper most closely associated with pictures of topless women and mostly invented celebrity gossip - to draw a parallel to a US publication, it carries about as much authority on underground electronic music as the National Enquirer.

It's difficult to find sources to confirm or deny this as there aren't really peer reviewed dubstep publications :) But a good place to start is it's listing on Beatport.com, which is the single largest retailer of electronic dance music in the world (outside of Top 20 stuff). In it's listing here (http://www.beatport.com/track/louder-feat-sian-evans-radio-edit/3081977) it's genre is clearly listed as House. Furthermore if you Google 'DJ Fresh Louder dubstep', the top results are all remixes designed to turn the original into an 'actual' dubstep track (Why would you name your track 'Dubstep remix', if it was already dubstep?).

I'll try and find some more sources for you. 90.196.236.242 (talk) 10:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

" It requires this beat and the 'wobble' to be considered dubstep. Without the beat it's house; without the wobble, it's probably grime or garage." no it doesn't, as any of us who've been listening to dubstep longer than 2 years know, sorry. If you read this article and its references you'll see music was being called dubstep before the wobble... under your blanket definition Skream - Midnight Request Line isn't dubstep, no wobble. The halfstep rhythm also came after the name was coined. But I would like to remove that statement altogether, is "the first dubstep #1" really important? Kaini?Seckle? - filelakeshoe 12:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry I do not know how to indent this as you did with your reply.

Thank you for your patronising reply - I was running dubstep nights in 2005 so I've been listening for a little bit longer than 2 years. I decided to 'read the article' as you suggested, and right there in the 2nd paragraph it says that the earliest dubstep tracks (in 1998) were attempts to incorporate elements of breakbeat and D'n'B into 2-step, forming a sort of 'dark-garage' (which I think is a great term). The word 'Dubstep' itself comes from mixing the terms 'dub' and '2 step' so it would be a bit difficult for the 2-step beats to have been incorporated AFTER it was named.

The 'wobble' I was referring to was not necessarily the WOMPA WOMPA WOMPA that you get in most brostep; I meant it more of a general rhythmic feel of the track - and the Skream track you posted has in spades, both with the lead synth (both in it's sound and rhythm) and the undulating (for lack of a better term) sub-bass. It's a 'feel' rather than a specific description of the bassline (at least it is in my head) so perhaps I didn't explain myself well enough.

Either way, I think the term is incorrectly applied to the DJ Fresh tune (do you agree?) and you think it's irrelevant, perhaps we can unite and just remove the sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.236.165 (talk) 18:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

the article is overlong as it is - seeing as it seems to be a contentious point, and it doesn't really add much to the article, i'd agree with snipping it. Kaini (talk) 22:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

we're using the term "wobble" differently then - to me it's always meant a bassline with the filter cutoff modulated by an LFO. I've removed the paragraph.. it's too contentious and too early to write such history without a clear musicological definition. - filelakeshoe 11:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to perpetuate this argument, but considering we have reliable source that both confirms the track to be dubstep and makes reference to its notability within the genre, surely we should not remove it simply because it is contentious?

Personally, I would posit that it is noteworthy enough to be included within this article. If we need to cut down the article length, surely some unsourced information could be removed instead? Stop the Cavalry (talk) 15:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 December 2011

Hello, I would like to let you know that the section on brostep is misleading. Brostep is not a subgenre, it is a simple hate term made by certain Dubstep listeners to separate the "mainstream" artists like Skrillex and Zomboy from older more classical sounding dubstep artists like DatsiK and Joker. The term was literally made through UK opinions on americans. It was made by UK dubstep listeners because they thought that bro is the term used by most college and highschool kids. Its a stereotype that caused a coinage on the term Brostep. The term is meant to describe americanized dubstep as a bad thing not a separate subgenre. Albeit there may be some differences in the music itself but it is not a seperate genre. They layout of the music is the same the BPM's are the same the measures are the same. The term is made to insult this new style of Dubstep not to classify it. If you look online brostep is almost ALWAYS referred to in a negative outlook. I hope you understand that this term Brostep is not a classifying term but an insulting one. I hope you will please change the section on brostep to reflect the negative outlook as well or if you could please remove the whole section that would be even better

208.98.185.46 (talk) 10:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Except Rusko himself is now using the term, as you can see from the sources. The fact that it was and can be used in an insulting way is irrelevant. I know it's not perfect, but it's less misleading than calling it "Americanised Dubstep", seeing as it was pioneered by two British producers. - filelakeshoe 13:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Use in mainstream music

Famous artists specialized in breakbeat may have made dubstep before the Britney Spears recognition. For exemple, Prodigy's 2004 album Always Outnumbered Never Outgunned and Ayumi Hamasaki's 2006 album Secret can be considered as being dubstep. Hamasaki's album can even be considered as the first full pop-dubstep album in history. Whatever you think or not, those two albums are clearly more dubstep than Spears Freakshow.Sancho21 (talk) 09:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I think Cher Lloyds 'Dub on the track' as much as it pains me to say it, is probably a more recent, notable example of mainstream Dubstep. Plus some pretty interesting back lash from Skream a while back over Twitter. Kidlvr (talk) 10:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Suggested Example of Dubstep Drums

Dubstep Drum Example

This example shows the common drum sounds that I like to use in Dubstep

MtHoustonDubstep (talk) 02:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Dubstep Drums MIDI.jpg

Dubstep Drums MIDI

— Preceding unsigned comment added by MtHoustonDubstep (talk • contribs) 03:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Structure, Bass Drops, Rewinds, and MCs

In most modern dubstep, a drop sounds like this, except in my style.

Dubstep Drop Original

MtHoustonDubstep (talk) 03:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the vocal sample "I am Mt Houston" is really necessary other than it matches your username on wikipedia and could be used as an example of what not to do on wikipedia, i.e. self-promotion. Kidlvr (talk) 10:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Origins

No mention of Mr. Oizo "Flat Beat": 1998-1999 4-track E.P. Probably the first "wobble bass" dance/electronic record.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kv6Ewqx3PMs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.15.46.105 (talk) 01:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)