Dubstepforum.com

fuckwalkingimdubstepping wrote:IS THE FUTURE................................................................................... http://www.myspace.com/mattedsounds http://www.myspace.com/mattedsounds http://www.myspace.com/mattedsounds http://www.myspace.com/mattedsounds
hate to repeat my self geezer but this is the future.....merkin it believe me ave a listen n spread the word

oioi mileage! you set me some 320s bro?

concept_ wrote:

fuckwalkingimdubstepping wrote:IS THE FUTURE................................................................................... http://www.myspace.com/mattedsounds http://www.myspace.com/mattedsounds http://www.myspace.com/mattedsounds http://www.myspace.com/mattedsounds
hate to repeat my self geezer but this is the future.....merkin it believe me ave a listen n spread the word

oioi mileage! you set me some 320s bro?

you know miles too?!!?!??!!? small world

UFO over easy wrote:IT'S ALL A MASSIVE CONSPIRACY! OBJECTIVE TRUTH HAS BEEN QUASHED!

consensus reality. The more you say it the realer it becomes.

http://blog.urbanomic.com/sphaleotas/ar ... 00489.html

Baron_von_Carlton wrote:Surely writing about a cultural revolution which has influenced society for the last 60 years or so is more interesting than writing about a little known genre of electronic music, largely unknown by the vast majority of the worlds population.

Lolz. Rock n what...?

fuckwalkingimdubstepping wrote:IS THE FUTURE................................................................................... http://www.myspace.com/mattedsounds http://www.myspace.com/mattedsounds http://www.myspace.com/mattedsounds http://www.myspace.com/mattedsounds
hate to repeat my self geezer but this is the future.....merkin it believe me ave a listen n spread the word

oh deary me

gravy did quite good history of dubstep picture if you can dig it up, i believe burial had a cape

Deef - what class is this essay for (pardon if I missed that, but haven't seen anything so far)...? Music, history, culture, sociology... ?

I'm writing something. Won't say soon come, but still. Just be a part of it, bruv - it's all history once it's happened.

Lots here deef: http://www.riddim.ca/

Go to the Features section for stuff written between 2005 and 2007 and the UK Garage Archives section for 1996-2004, including everything that used to be on the old Hyperdub site.

Also check this map that Neil from Ammunition drew:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/20926708@N00/203655103/

Good luck with the paper

deef wrote:I avoid wiki at all costs.

Look at the wiki and then look up the sources it uses. IIRC the dubstep article is pretty good on specifying its sources. There's no need to say 'wikipedia says this' when all the wiki is saying is 'someone else says this.'

juliun_c90 wrote:they'll take one look at a piece of work that is heavily based on wikipedia and dismiss it.

this is happening not just in academia. wikipedia is taken very seriously in the business and legal world as well.

examples:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hsbc

it's considered to be "universally contributed knowledge", so people are using it to build background on lawsuits used in court as well as build marketing information. Britannica's system of updating can take years, and is often outdated information by the time it gets to print.

forgetting the dubstep page, you can't ignore how influential it's been. i support it 100%.

if you're one of the people that argue that it's bullshit, then see it from the perspective that all you need is an internet connection and you have free knowledge. there's millions of people in this world that can't afford an education or university. think about them for a minute.

seckle wrote:

juliun_c90 wrote:they'll take one look at a piece of work that is heavily based on wikipedia and dismiss it.

this is happening not just in academia. wikipedia is taken very seriously in the business and legal world as well. it's considered to be "universally contributed knowledge", so people are using it to build background on lawsuits used in court as well as build marketing information. Britannica's system of updating can take years, and is often outdated information by the time it gets to print.

forgetting the dubstep page, you can't ignore how influential it has been on global thought. it's truely incredible and i support it 100%

its quite the opposite when writing an essay anything quoted from wikipedia is ignored as none of the info is from a reliable source

aggle ale wrote:

seckle wrote:

juliun_c90 wrote:they'll take one look at a piece of work that is heavily based on wikipedia and dismiss it.

this is happening not just in academia. wikipedia is taken very seriously in the business and legal world as well. it's considered to be "universally contributed knowledge", so people are using it to build background on lawsuits used in court as well as build marketing information. Britannica's system of updating can take years, and is often outdated information by the time it gets to print.

forgetting the dubstep page, you can't ignore how influential it has been on global thought. it's truely incredible and i support it 100%

its quite the opposite when writing an essay anything quoted from wikipedia is ignored as none of the info is from a reliable source

"reliable" being the key word that we can debate all day long. what makes one source reliable and another non-reliable? well, in theory it's the editors job to figure that one out. wikipedia editors have a lot on their shoulders ;but when editing pages and checking sources they have to follow strict guidelines.

imo, the key guideline to grasp is :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... 28music%29

Wright about music culture, and if you really want to garage culture. I dunno how much props you get from academia for a review of Dubsteps position or what ever.

Saying that, i have read a jounal entry which was 80% reviews of Hip Hop albums from each 5 year milestone.

here's a 2006 new zealand listener article about dubstep,


http://www.listener.co.nz/issue/3466/ar ... _step.html

^^Jim's good people but he was never much of a garage head let alone a breaksteppa, always preferring his laidback triphop, downbeat and dub. Hence the lack of authenticity to that piece.

seckle wrote:if you're one of the people that argue that it's bullshit, then see it from the perspective that all you need is an internet connection and you have free knowledge. there's millions of people in this world that can't afford an education or university. think about them for a minute.

@seckle: get off your high horse man. i said nothing about whether wiki was a valid source/good idea or not, merely reflected an attitude which is quite prevalent within higher education in this country. don't turn it into a democratisation of information/class issue.

the key to its use in an academic context is demostrating that you've gone through a process of critical evaluation in terms of the information that it contains.

juliun_c90 wrote:word of warning: if your lecturers are anything like 90% of the academic staff at the uni i work at they'll take one look at a piece of work that is heavily based on wikipedia and dismiss it.

deef wrote:

Baron_von_Carlton wrote:Surely writing about a cultural revolution which has influenced society for the last 60 years or so is more interesting than writing about a little known genre of electronic music, largely unknown by the vast majority of the worlds population.

And so when does a genre surpass being too little and unknown to research and educate...!?

For one relatively small write-up question which has been proposed to hundreds of people I do find it more interesting to write about such a current growing scene, being part of it and the possibilities of its global awareness.

How many times has a lecturer had to wade through Elvis 'the King' papers?

I didn't say that, im just suggesting that it's boring. Don't get me wrong i love the music but nothing interesting has happened.
With Rock & Roll you have endless angles to cover.
With Dubstep you have a derivative scene thats been around a few years and had little or no impact on the world around us.

juliun_c90 wrote:word of warning: if your lecturers are anything like 90% of the academic staff at the uni i work at they'll take one look at a piece of work that is heavily based on wikipedia and dismiss it.

you're at leeds yeh juliun?

if so very true! i mean it's good for getting a rough idea about a subject and helping you get your head round it. but when it comes to writing the essay there is no way you could cite wikipedia as a source

ramadanman wrote:

juliun_c90 wrote:word of warning: if your lecturers are anything like 90% of the academic staff at the uni i work at they'll take one look at a piece of work that is heavily based on wikipedia and dismiss it.

you're at leeds yeh juliun?

if so very true! i mean it's good for getting a rough idea about a subject and helping you get your head round it. but when it comes to writing the essay there is no way you could cite wikipedia as a source

hold tite the Leeds Uni massi

Without trying to derail the thread, I think Wikipedia is an awesome resource. I agree that for academic papers and research you cannot simply base your ideas or information around wikipedia. However, it is still an excellent resource with so so so much information! I have learnt so much from just cruising pages in interest before.

I read a big article recently about it's use for students- many academics reject it as a useful tool citing the reliability issue. While this is an issue however, as seckle said, even the most thorough encyclopaedias like Britannica are outdated due to constant updating, and while on some subjects in britannica you might get a sentence or 2, on wiki you can get a whole biography and collection of related pages- the article exemplified this with some authors (but have forgotten which). the article also said academics are not ready to accept it as a good source, not just because of the reliability issue but also because it makes students complacent and lazy, plus the fact the internet is still quite a young phenomenon in perspective. They (most likely) didn't have such a great, easy to use resource during their academic years, and are jealous of the wealth of info available to youth of today.

I think it is a great resource, and the best uses of the internet I can think of, aside from communication.