Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Art Mastering: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:11, 20 August 2006 editVoy7 (talk | contribs)98 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit Revision as of 17:44, 20 August 2006 edit undoHankwang (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers5,941 edits formatting, {{unsigned}}, clarification of Pgk revertNext edit →
Line 28: Line 28:
*'''Mild Delete''' I find Andrew's point above very valid. It would also seem that the article would encourage spam which is not needed. Finally unsigned keep statements make me very suspicious --] <b><sup><small>(])</small></sup></b> 09:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC) *'''Mild Delete''' I find Andrew's point above very valid. It would also seem that the article would encourage spam which is not needed. Finally unsigned keep statements make me very suspicious --] <b><sup><small>(])</small></sup></b> 09:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


*'''Note''' I have reverted out two '''KEEP''' votes from brand new editors, both editing through broken proxies. --]<sup>(<font color="mediumseagreen">]</font>)</sup> 11:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC) ( and )
::Clarification: this refers to the restored contributions by MagnusSound and JWilman below. ] 17:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


*'''Keep''' - It is a good article and is supported by references. Should be kept in wikipedia. '''What is this discrimination against new users''' I'm a new user too, do you want to ban me as well. Let people speak. This is unamerican. Have those users been banned? I don't think so otherwise they couldn't post comments. I'm putting their comments back into the discussion.]
* '''Note''' I have reverted out two '''KEEP''' votes from brand new editors, both editing through broken proxies. --]<sup>(<font color="mediumseagreen">]</font>)</sup> 11:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC) ( and )


*'''Keep''' - The source article from musicbiz academy is legit, The writer (G-Man) is legit, The website that published it is legit. That is already enough. But also there is a testimonial by Michael Sembello on artmastering.com website specifically mentioning thanking for work on "Maniac" and there is a picture of Sembello and Sayecki together in the studio. Most internet articles vanish after 6 months, while this article is kept on many websites for almost 3 years, so it is obviously meaningful and people read it and therefore is '''Notable'''. I have no time to browse through way-back-machine but I'm sure that if the article stayed for so lon on so many websites, it was much more popular right after it was published.


:'''I checked Hankwang edit history''' and it looks like he removed some critical information from compact disk ] article. He removed ABBA, Claudio Arrau, and Chopin and other info! His edit was fortunately reverted but I'm wondering why is he so vigorously atacking articles that seem legit and particularily those related to CD and CD mastering ?
* '''Keep'''
:{{unsigned|MagnusSound}}
It is a good article and is supported by references. Should be kept in wikipedia.


*Keeper, Definitely. A one of my demo tracks was mastered with artmastering, so I have had a first hand experience with the process. I live in Oxnarxd and visit LA often. I had a limited budget and I couldn't go to back to the recording studio but I was not happy with a guitar part in my song, so we cut it out and changed the pitch of the first bar in the bridge to match the spliced parts. It was fun. Sayecki is well known here in a LA and obviously in the world, after all those articles appeared. I see no problem with the article is a Definite Keeper.--]
'''What is this discrimination against new users''' I'm a new user too, do you want to ban me as well. Let people speak. This is unamerican. Have those users been banned? I don't think so otherwise they couldn't post comments. I'm putting their comments back into the discussion.]


*'''Before we continue this discussion any further please look at this: http://www.artmastering.com/p_sembello_sayecki.html'''
*'''Keep''' The source article from musicbiz academy is legit, The writer (G-Man) is legit, The website that published it is legit. That is already enough.
:'''I'd say this is Very Notable''' ]

But also there is a testimonial by Michael Sembello on artmastering.com website specifically mentioning thanking for work on "Maniac" and there is a picture of Sembello and Sayecki together in the studio.

Most internet articles vanish after 6 months, while this article is kept on many websites for almost 3 years, so it is obviously meaningful and people read it and therefore is '''Notable'''. I have no time to browse through way-back-machine but I'm sure that if the article stayed for so lon on so many websites, it was much more popular right after it was published.

'''I checked Hankwang edit history''' and it looks like he removed some critical information from compact disk ] article. He removed ABBA, Claudio Arrau, and Chopin and other info! His edit was fortunately reverted but I'm wondering why is he so vigorously atacking articles that seem legit and particularily those related to CD and CD mastering ?

Keeper, Definitely. A one of my demo tracks was mastered with artmastering, so I have had a first hand experience with the process. I live in Oxnarxd and visit LA often. I had a limited budget and I couldn't go to back to the recording studio but I was not happy with a guitar part in my song, so we cut it out and changed the pitch of the first bar in the bridge to match the spliced parts. It was fun. Sayecki is well known here in a LA and obviously in the world, after all those articles appeared. I see no problem with the article is a Definite Keeper.--]

*'''Before we continue this discussion any further please look at this:

http://www.artmastering.com/p_sembello_sayecki.html

'''I'd say this is Very Notable''' ]

Revision as of 17:44, 20 August 2006

Art Mastering

Vanity/Non-notability. Article is almost for sure created by the company founder, given the page history and the other contributions of Voy7 and 66.214.253.155 (inserting links to website). The author claims that the company mastered a hit song/cd and therefore belongs on Misplaced Pages. A search on Google for "Art mastering" gives the company webpage and a few mentionings on forums and the competing company audioplexus (links to which the author has vigorously replaced by own links in Audio mastering). Han-Kwang 18:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete As someone who creates music, this article makes very little sense to me. For example, it says that someone doing "artmastering" might change the "order of movements or instrumental parts". Maybe, but if so they're not mastering, they're arranging, which is a whole different step in the recording process. Also, I don't recall ever reading about "artmastering" in any professional musicians' magazine, not even when they have whole articles about the mastering process. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
    • The text states that changing the "..order of movements or instrumental parts.." is done only in some extreme cases. I think you will agree, that changing the order of tracks, or cutting off and fading out a section of a radio mix to fit it into a prescribed time slot, are tasks commonly performed in mastering studios. So I see no issue, if in some extreme cases, the artist wishes to change an order of movements. As far as calling it "arranging", you are right, it definitely goes beyond the regualar mastering, that is probably why they called it "armastering" because it involves artistic decisions. R. Watts
  • Keep Do a websearch under "artmastering" see what you will find. "Maniac" and its subsequent remixes were big hits in the US. Another article on one of the leading music sites MusicBizAcademy.com features Art Sayecki and Artmastering and mentions Michael Sembello and "Maniac" http://www.musicbizacademy.com/articles/gman_mastering.htm . I also found a testimonial of Michael Sembello, the author of "Maniac", on www.artmastering.com website. So start listening to music, Hankwang , and start reading about it before you attempt to edtit anything associated with Audio Mastering. R. Watts
    • If I do a search for "artmastering" as you suggest, I get 19 unique Google hits, most of which seem to be links to the same site. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Search under "art mastering" (two words). This link comes up www.musicbizacademy.com/articles/gman_mastering.htm dated Jan 2004. It's an editorial article featuring several top mastering studios. Then the same article was re-printed by 8 different music websites for last 3 years.
http://www.allmusicproject.com/GMan/Mastering_GMan.html
http://thabocks.com/music/arcorner/masteringyourmusic.html
http://www.goodnightkiss.com/mastering.html
http://www.indieguitarists.com/gmanarticlemastering.htm
http://www.digidogs.com/shop/product_info.php?products_id=15372
http://electro-music.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4035
http://robertneary.phorumz.com/robertneary-ptopic16.html
http://www.musicbizacademy.com/articles/gman_mastering.htm
This is not a fluke but a well received editorial and deserves to be in wikipedia and artmastering should be in wiki as well. R. Watts
  • I don't think these websites meet the notability guidelines in WP:CORP, in particular "published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations". The editorial (with 8 copies) is written by the G-Man Marketing Company, that specicializes in advertising. Quote from the G-Man website: "I once ghostwrote an article for a coalition of companies So I was paid three thousand dollars to state their case." Han-Kwang 21:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • What a cheap shot Hankwang, you took a sentence out of context from an article in which G-man is speaking against advertising industry. Not even mentioning that the article which you try to diminish is an editorial and features several competing studios so there is no question about credibility http://www.musicbizacademy.com/articles/gman_mastering.htm
Also G-man (Scott-G) writes for National Association of Record Industry Professionals, http://www.narip.com/index.php?page=aboutus .
Additionally, the Musicbizacademy which was the first to published this article meets with ease the criteria of WP:CORP . It is one of the most popular and best established online music publications out there. Do a websearch search for: musicbizacademy . Sorry but sounds like you have no clue on the subject of music.
  • I apologize for apparently misunderstanding G-Man's intentions. But we are talking about an AfD proposal, not about how much I know about music. Han-Kwang 22:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • No problem, and sorry for my outburst. You are right, the matter should be discussed and you have evry right to question the subject and voice your point of view.R. Watts
  • Mild Delete I find Andrew's point above very valid. It would also seem that the article would encourage spam which is not needed. Finally unsigned keep statements make me very suspicious --Nigel 09:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Clarification: this refers to the restored contributions by MagnusSound and JWilman below. Han-Kwang 17:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - It is a good article and is supported by references. Should be kept in wikipedia. What is this discrimination against new users I'm a new user too, do you want to ban me as well. Let people speak. This is unamerican. Have those users been banned? I don't think so otherwise they couldn't post comments. I'm putting their comments back into the discussion.biggyP
  • Keep - The source article from musicbiz academy is legit, The writer (G-Man) is legit, The website that published it is legit. That is already enough. But also there is a testimonial by Michael Sembello on artmastering.com website specifically mentioning thanking for work on "Maniac" and there is a picture of Sembello and Sayecki together in the studio. Most internet articles vanish after 6 months, while this article is kept on many websites for almost 3 years, so it is obviously meaningful and people read it and therefore is Notable. I have no time to browse through way-back-machine but I'm sure that if the article stayed for so lon on so many websites, it was much more popular right after it was published.
I checked Hankwang edit history and it looks like he removed some critical information from compact disk CD article. He removed ABBA, Claudio Arrau, and Chopin and other info! His edit was fortunately reverted but I'm wondering why is he so vigorously atacking articles that seem legit and particularily those related to CD and CD mastering ?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by MagnusSound (talkcontribs)
  • Keeper, Definitely. A one of my demo tracks was mastered with artmastering, so I have had a first hand experience with the process. I live in Oxnarxd and visit LA often. I had a limited budget and I couldn't go to back to the recording studio but I was not happy with a guitar part in my song, so we cut it out and changed the pitch of the first bar in the bridge to match the spliced parts. It was fun. Sayecki is well known here in a LA and obviously in the world, after all those articles appeared. I see no problem with the article is a Definite Keeper.--Jonathan Wilman
I'd say this is Very Notable R. Watts