Talk:Music tracker/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions about Music tracker. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

880 kB

"No bigger than 880 kB"? Is this the actual hard limit for the format, and shouldn't this differ per tracker? Seems like an arbitrary number to me. It needs some elaboration. --Michiel Sikma 06:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

That figure is the maximum capacity of a standard Amiga floppy disk. It should be rewritten to be specific about early trackers on the Amiga. - Pixel8 07:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Free image?

For purposes of image freedom, I think it'd be a good idea to use a screenshot of a Free tracker as as the main illustration of a tracker, and leave the proprietary trackers to "History" if they need to be present at all. For instance, you could use Image:Modplug tracker 960.png, a screenshot of the GPL'd ModPlug Tracker. --Damian Yerrick (☎) 20:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is a much better history

If we are able to contact the author of this article: http://www.textfiles.com/artscene/music/information/karstenobarski.html

Perhaps it would be better to use material from one instead of some that is currently in the history section?

I already referenced parts of that article for the Ultimate Soundtracker article. You could use parts of it for describing the earliest Amiga trackers, but no more than a paragraph or two, I'd say. Further history of mid to late Amiga trackers (e.g. ProTracker 2 and later) and trackers on PC and other platforms should use other references. --Vossanova 19:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

History cleanup

The History section could stand to be cleaned up a bit. Some parts of it are about trackers in general and not about the history, and other parts get too detailed about certain trackers that have or should have their own articles (like Soundtracker). --Vossanova 18:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I have spent some time cleaning it up now. I think its fairly to the point and chronoligical now. However, theres still a lot of bad language; too long sentenses and many examples of too complicated language. (I mean, its still horrible ;-), but I don't think its that much confusing anymore.)

Update: I have rewritten almost everything, cut out obvious irrelevant information, and tightened it up a lot. I think most language is okey now, but I still don't have a good feeling about the section. Most of the facts seems to be rather randomly picked. I don't know that much about the tracker history myself, but I'm missing a red thread, maybe because I have cut out too much. What does the german history section say, by the way? Anyone who understands german?

Could you please use the ~~~~ tag to sign your messages? --Vossanova 19:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I had another go at that section, fixing some spelling/copyediting issues and editing for flow. I don't think I changed any of the stated facts, but the language as I found it was a little unclear in spots. Most particularly, the prior text didn't explain the issue of downmixing MOD/S3M for the SB cards' 1/2 channels. At the time, software mixing would have been computationally quite expensive, but I don't know if there were further issues. Moppet 22:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Split list of trackers

I've added a suggestion to split the long list of trackers into its own article. I propose calling it "List of audio trackers" to be consistent with the Audio Trackers category. While some specific trackers could still be mentioned in the main article, they would only be cited as examples when useful (e.g. in the History section). --Vossanova 19:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. --Sylph 16:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree too. --201.17.211.199 19:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Vossanova ^o< 20:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

List of well known composers using tracker software

This list is very subjective. It seems to invite vain trackers/ex-trackers who visit the page. Could someone create criteria for being listed here, such as Google hits and/or Nectarine rankings/requests? --Vossanova 19:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Except for a few peoples names that I know from the demo scene, I have never heard of anyone of the people on that list, and I doubt many or any of them are well known composers. Like it is now, it would be better if the list was removed entirely. (unsigned comment)

Another suggestion, and maybe a better one, would be to create a "Category:Tracker musicians" or "Category:Demoscene musicians" and add the appropriate musician pages already in existence to it. This would provide an easily referrable list and force each musician to be judged by notability. --Vossanova 18:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea... (unsigned comment)

I'm getting close to removing this list and making a category. At the very least, I'd like to require Wikipedia/website links for everyone on this list so we can verify that they're "well known". --Vossanova 16:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Finally done! Goodbye vanity list, hello Category:Tracker musicians. Now you actually have to write an article to be listed. :) --Vossanova ^o< 14:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use image

Image:Modplug tracker 960.png is fair use. Image:Soundtracker.png is free. We are only supposed to use fair use images if it cannot be replaced. --Ysangkok 11:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

garageband

Isn't Apple's GarageBand kind-of-a-tracker too? --Have a nice day. Running 20:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Not really, since tracker music thingys are 'rendered' real-time, GarageBand is more of a sequencer WalrusMan118 (talk) 20:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Other use?

Tracker is often used to refer to access to a database that compiles torrent data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.34.246.247 (talk) 07:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Dispute - swing note difficulty

Regarding the last paragraph in the history section - I disagree that it was "difficult" to make swing tempos in trackers.. it was just that very few bothered in the early days. Many musicians tried the swing tempo trick (e.g. 03, 04, 03, 04..) at one time or another. While the layout of trackers may encourage 4/4 beat music, it's trivial for the average tracker musician to make any other kind of beat - no different than any other method of computer music making. --Vossanova 14:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The reason I wrote that the creation of swing tempos difficult is that most if not all tracker software best complements 4/4 beats and so anyone looking for a swing tempo had to constantly change the tempo - this in itself was not a major feat though arduous - but the effects column was often the same column in which the tempo was changed. If one filled the entire effects column with tempo changes, that left little room for note expression and the very fact that most "module" sequencers favored the 4/4 beat (64 note rows as the standard) made it that more challenging. While of course the amount of note rows could be changed, that's beside the point - tracker software was not designed to accomodate swing tempos and in that respect difficulty arises. D rand 22:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

In many cases, one of the instruments doesn't use a lot of effects, leaving a free column in which to insert swing messages. Or one could use a "pattern end" effect on row 47, leaving a 48-row pattern perfect for 3/4 or 6/8 or 12/8. --Damian Yerrick (☎) 04:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, one can simply alter block lengths to numbers like 48, 72 or 96, and write music in groups of 3 (instead of 2/4) to imitate the swing style. This way, you avoid constantly writing tempo changes, and more importantly, you are able to use all three thirds of the 'triplet' (rather than just the first and third), which allows for greater musical flexibility. --Skytopia (talk) 16:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

~~ A curious standard of "difficulty" this offers. At the time trackers were important (1980s?), their competition for COMPOSING music was MIDI composition software and hardware synthesisers. In a typical MIDI sequencer of the time, there would be a "percentage swing" function, where, for example, 50% was equal note lengths (not swung), 66% was "typical" swing, or triplets, and an in-between setting was in-between. The command could be applied to individual tracks, or in some cases whole patterns (if the sequencer used them) or the entire composition.

The difference in difficulty between setting a numeric percentage, or, say, 8 of them for 8 tracks, and inserting tempo changes for every beat in a composition, whether there are notes on that beat or not, would seem to be orders of magnitude, especially if one wanted something more subtle than generic "everything at 66%" triplet swing.

A column of A07 A05 A07 A05 (in S3M notation) for a 58% swing isn't so hard, is it? It's not even tedious if your tracker has copy and paste (hello Modplug). And it's even more flexible if you're willing to change the "tempo" setting. --Damian Yerrick (☎) 04:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

TFM Music Maker has two tempos for automatic swing effect. I don't think it is the only tracker to feature this. Alone Coder (talk) 15:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

subcultural aspects

This is lacking its aspects as a subculture, this book should be a good start. Cheers.

René T. A. Lysloff, Leslie C. Gay (2003). Music and technoculture (illustrated ed.). Wesleyan University Press. pp. 37-38, 50 58. ISBN 0819565148, 9780819565143. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)

--Enric Naval (talk) 09:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Common name, article should be redirected and retitled

As per WP:COMMONAME, I really think that this isn't the most common thing people think of when they look up "Tracker" and the title should redirect to Tracking (hunting) instead of an article about software music sequencers. I don't think the general public is that familiar with software music sequencers; when they hear the word "Tracker" they think of the hunting term. -- œ ^™ 23:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

And how do you know the general public thinks of the hunting term and not any one of the dozen or more other uses for the term? I can hear the argument for redirecting "Tracker" to the disambiguation page, but not for a sudden change in what is considered the overwhelmingly common usage. --Vossanova ^o< 15:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I can agree on this title being the dab page. And move this article to maybe Tracker (computing)? or Tracker (music)? -- œ ^™ 22:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Notability of tracker articles?

It seems that the article for Schism Tracker, the ONLY decent Impulse Tracker clone for modern operating systems and one of the very few open-source trackers available for both Windows and Unix systems, was recently deleted as per VfM. I'm not sure about the exact criteria that makes a tracker program "unnotable" or even "vanity" for deletionists, but I'd guess that many of the trackers with articles might be found even less "notable". (And BTW, you can still vote for undelete in Wikipedia:Deletion review#Schism Tracker).

"As a borderline deletionist, I've been trying to weed out some empty and non-notable tracker articles. I've added as many tracker pages as I could find to the Category:Audio Trackers page, as a list of articles to compare and judge. Maybe some of the less notable IT/FT clones could be appended to the Impulse Tracker and Fast Tracker articles." --Vossanova

There is no worth in deleting pages. I submit as proof that the Impulse Tracker page was just discussed and somehow deleted. I never had a chance to comment as I never knew it was up for discussion but I could have provided nearly a hundred relevant references that would have met the notability guidelines.

This is one of the reasons I have stopped editing wikipedia -- it bills itself as the sum of all human knowledge, yet values deletion as much as creation, which makes no sense. --Trixter (talk) 00:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment: It seems the modplug-tracker (now known as openMPT) guys have been vandalizing and/or deleting Schsim Tracker related stuff on wikipedia. It would be nice if this form of abuse did not take place. - delt.

File:Protracker.gif Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Protracker.gif, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 20 June 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Protracker.gif)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

List of music trackers

Buze

There is no link for Buze website and current link will lead to some article about Turkish guy. Even google search didn't find that software.

-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.33.240 (talk) 16:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

OS priority

ONE question : Why would the Amiga be listed as "Other OS"? The whole Tracker concept is a baby of the Amiga, developed on Amiga, and designed to function, and work with the 4 sound channels of the Amiga (LRRL) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.11.14.240 (talk) 18:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

There, better? Marasmusine (talk) 18:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding referrals to MS-DOS, their were many versions of DOS available that ran on a variety of computer systems to say that all these versions were owned by Microsoft is untrue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.255.157 (talk) 06:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

There were the two original products, MS-DOS and PC-DOS, that run on x86, which in turn were forked from 86-DOS. There are numerous more or less compatible 3rd party operating systems such as DR-DOS and more recently FreeDOS. Then there are completely unrelated operating systems called DOS "that ran on a variety of computer systems" such as AmigaDOS, Apple DOS and Atari DOS. I think a generic, but descriptive, description is MS-DOS and compatibles. Nitro2k01 (talk) 15:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

This article was nominated for deletion on 26 January 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Jokosher isn't a tracker, shouldn't be in the list

Why isn't commodore 64 in the list of platforms ?

Because no-one has bothered to add them yet? --Vossanova ^o< 17:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, someone did now Jalwikip 14:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Added PolyTracker

PolyTracker is an obscure PC tracker used in the PC demoscene by only two musicians, ViC/AcmE and The REW/Nostalgia. However, since yours thruly created an extensive format description document, almost all players today stil support the PTM file format (e.g. WinAmp), so I decided to edit the tracker in the list. Jalwikip 14:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess there should be some mobile platforms here. There are some clones of FastTracker for Pocket PC --Podlec (talk) 15:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Removed SunVox from Cross-Platform Section

SunVox, although it does have an FM synth, sampler, etc does not attempt to emulate any other specific system. Therefore it doesn't belong in this section. It doesn't fit in with the others (they all list the specific sound chip or platform the emulate after their name: 2A03, AY-3-8910, POKEY, Gameboy, etc). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.203.157.127 (talk) 04:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Unverified info

I've removed all unverified entries per consensus at the AfD that just closed. For convenience, if you wan to add them back with sources, this is the version before clean-up. Pcap ping 01:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

After this removal this article became a copy of Category:Audio trackers. Compare Film formats - what will it be if one removes every unsourced entry? What kind of source is required? Alone Coder (talk) 10:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Not quite. I did not remove entries that had a reference, no matter how flimsy, but there were only two of those. As for what kind of sources are preferred, see WP:RS. Pcap ping 12:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

According to WP:RS, you deny the whole community for existance. See: for example, Pro Tracker for ZX Spectrum, in which whole 2/3 of AY-3-8910/YM2149F songs are written (10744/16090 in TR-Songs v3.9), is not notable, because it is mentioned only in ZX Spectrum press, which is non-notable, and ZX Spectrum sites, which are non-notable. A half of AY composers used this program, but they all are non-notable. Vortex Tracker is based on its format, but it is non-notable as well. The format is played in non-notable AY Emul and some non-notable flash player. These songs were used in numerous homebrew games and demos, all of which are not notable according to the same criteria. They are finally collected at Bulba's and Newart's sites, that are both non-notable. Alone Coder (talk) 14:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear. Even Impulse Tracker for MS-DOS is removed! Alone Coder (talk) 15:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Being mentioned only in ZX Spectrum press is enough. Look at Soundtracker for instance. The sources cited do not need to have Wikipedia articles; there's a difference between a source being reliable, and itself being notable enough for an article. The latter is no required to cite a source. Pcap ping 15:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the deletion of Impulse Tracker was unfortunate, but I did not take part in that AfD; the article has been moved to userspace for further work. I saved ScreamTracker though here. Pcap ping 15:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'm starting to revamp the article by removing unverifiable entries, citing what I can, and merging in smaller articles on tracker software that are verifiable but don't pass WP:N. This may take me a week or two, but I think it will look good when I'm finished. Marasmusine (talk) 13:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's I'll list the software that I'm removing: If you have a reliable source for any, then post the link. At best, I've found directory entries with publisher's descriptions, or blogs. Marasmusine (talk) 13:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Goattracker, Pro Tracker, Nerd Tracker II, FamiTracker, Mod2PSG2, MVSTracker, NeoTracker, Paragon Five Tracker, Raster Music Tracker, TFM Music Maker, Vortex Tracker II, ProTrekkr, MadTracker, NoiseTrekker, Schism Tracker, PSG Tracker

MadTracker

MadTracker is a pretty well established tracker in the PC music scene. It was reviewed in UK's Computer Music magazine in about 2002. I can't find a reference to the review on the web. The closest I've found is a quote from another article in the same magazine:

Computer Music Magazine - issue 100, page 11

"An exciting project is now getting underway at Madtracker in the form of the 2006 Chainsong. If you havent got the faintest clue what this is, we can tell you that the clue's (kind of) in the title. The idea is that one person will begin a song by writing a few patterns of music. when he or she has had enough, the baton will be passed to the next in a long line of musicians who will tack on their own ideas. The process continues until the song is completed. For a look at whats going on and whos taking part, and to listen to previous chainsong, head over to www.madtracker.org."

I will endeavour to find a reference to the correct article, as a review in print media is a high standard for verification. InternetMeme (talk) 11:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

A reference to the program (listed amongst other well-known music software) can be found at Asus Eee PC | Music tech reviews | MusicRadar.com which at least proves MadTracker to be more than some obscure hacker progam that nobody has heard of. InternetMeme (talk) 11:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The Computer Music review would be ideal. Perhaps someone at the music wikiproject has back issues. I will ask. The music tech review isn't so helpful, as all it says is "MadTracker runs on the Asus Eee". Thankyou for your efforts, Meme, sorry about the abrupt revert. If we can get access to a Computer Music archive, that will very useful to this article on the whole. Marasmusine (talk) 12:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey there,

Yeah, the music tech review isn't great, I just thought it was useful to show that MadTracker is an established piece of software that magazine writers hold in some regard. I will have another go at finding a concrete reference : ) InternetMeme (talk) 17:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Keep eyes peeled here. Marasmusine (talk) 22:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

NTRQ

http://blog.ntrq.net/ I think NTRQ, the one and only native NES tracker should be added.--Retrotails (talk) 00:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Schism Tracker

SchismTracker is missing. It is GPL licensed clone of impulse tracker. Here's the webpage http://eval.sovietrussia.org/wiki/Schism_Tracker —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.132.244.20 (talk) 18:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Content needs to adhere to WP:Verification policy - this isn't a list of all trackers that exist. Try to find where Schism has been talked about in reliable publications. Marasmusine (talk) 06:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Hum... the official site isn't enough? Any reasonable doubt for the authenticity of Schism Tracker? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.132.244.20 (talk) 21:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

No, as I say, this isn't a directory of all trackers that exist. We only report what has already been reported in reliable publications. Marasmusine (talk) 23:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I confirmed this is indeed according to the rules. Thanks for your reply. I believe the bellow discussion should make this issue much more clear and puts an end to this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.132.244.20 (talk) 19:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

That's not what the verifiability policy says. As an administrator, you should know this. You're thinking of notability, and furthermore you're applying it wrong, as lists and the items within them do not have the same standards as stand-alone articles. A tracker's website about itself is perfectly acceptable for verifiability but not notability - "primary sources" are one kind of legitimate source, but for notability they cannot stand alone. While "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", it is perfectly acceptable to list all the fairly well known trackers. Schism Tracker is one of those. So is Famitracker. This list can be expanded considerably in perfect accordance with the policies regarding list content Justadude (talk) 15:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

You are correct in saying that it is perfectly acceptable to list all the fairly well known trackers: The way we determine whether a tracker is fairly well known is by checking to see that it has been mentioned in a third-party publication, such as a music magazine. InternetMeme (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Audio trackers requiring a reliable source.

Hey guys,

I thought I'd put the two unverified trackers here to remind people to keep looking for reliable source. I haven't had much luck with MadTracker so far, but I know it was reviewed in Computer Music Magazine in about 2002, so if anyone has the issue, that would be very helpful : )

More information Name, Latest release ...

Name	Latest release	License	OS Compatibility			Binary formats						XML	Wave export	VST support	ASIO output
Name	Latest release	License	Windows	Mac OS X	Linux	MID	MOD	XM	IT	S3M	MPTM	XRNS	Wave export	VST support	ASIO output
MadTracker	2.6.1 (Feb 2006)	Shareware	Yes	No	No	Yes	Load	Yes	Load	Load	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes
SchismTracker	20100101 (Jan 2010)	GPL	Yes	Yes	Yes				Yes				Yes
BeRoTracker^[1]	1.0 (Jul 2007)	Freeware	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	No

InternetMeme (talk) 11:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

STOP PRESS! The latest issue of Computer Music has a special on Trackers!. This may only be available in the UK so I'll grab a copy as soon as I see it. Marasmusine (talk) 13:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

This tide of good fortune bodes well for this article : ) Good stuff! InternetMeme (talk) 02:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The July issue has replaced it already, so I'll try to get hold of it through back issues. Marasmusine (talk) 10:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Hahah, what I didn't spot was that the Tracker special was June 2007. Although looking through last months issue, it does look like they have a regular feature on the topic ("Totally trackers" - this one is on Renoise 2.5). Marasmusine (talk) 08:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Negative on the back issue through Future Publishing (they only keep 6 month's worth). I'll just have to keep my eye on various second-hand sources. Marasmusine (talk) 19:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I removed Nanoloop

While it is a Game Boy music sequencer, it doesn't have any of the defining traits of a tracker. Nitro2k01 (talk) 12:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

OpenMPT and Linux

Veedgo (talk) 16:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)OpenMPT does work in Linux under Wine. I am not very good at "wining" programs in Linux, but I got this to work without hardly any trouble. This may go for other programs that have Linux = NO. I haven't thoroughly tested it, but I can open and play all kinds of tracker files. Also, so far, all of the editing capabilities seem to work. I haven't delved into the VST (or LADSPA or LV2) plugins yet, though.

Although it's great to get things running with WinE, it still doesn't equal having a Linux version of the program; therefore the table must still read Linux = No. InternetMeme (talk) 19:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Splitting the table

Would it make sense to split the table into Platform, Formats and Features? That would also realign it with the heading? Ensonic (talk) 19:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Soundtracker really the first one?

Is the Soundtracker by Karsten Obarski really the first tracker which was released? I don't think so. Chris Huelsbeck wrote his "Soundmonitor"(article in the german Wikipedia) in 1986 for the Commodore 64 and published it in the german magazine "64er" which was published in 10/1986. Shall we change that? -Octoate (talk) 15:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

And im not sure from which year rockmonitor(C64) came, but this monitor/tracker had sample playback. Checked it 1987. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVRxD1qjlAM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.173.183.83 (talk) 13:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Ref idea

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jul04/articles/pcmusician.htm

czar ⨹ 18:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Module file be merged into Music tracker. They are closely related as only trackers can produce modules. Also the content in the Module article, specially the History section, is already explained in the Tracker article. There is no need to have two separate articles explaining how and when trackers and modules originated. Hakken (talk) 14:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, I do see some reason for specialized articles: the technical focus on the module article and historical context / scene aspect on the tracker article. cheers Shaddim (talk) 23:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that information belongs here. The module format is more of a historic technical thing, while a tracker is a type of computer program to make music. 129.240.92.69 (talk) 14:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Good wiki articles should adress all aspects of an topic. History and social context, how and when a technology was invented or has developed, are clearly relevant and notable. What was the reception ? What was the impact? Vice versa, these aspects are currently underrepresented and needs to be added in on or both articles. cheers Shaddim (talk) 14:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

But the historic context of modules is the same as trackers'. Module files started in the Amiga scene with the release of the first tracker, Ultimate Soundtracker, a software that was followed by a series of clones, all of which, including Ultimate Soundtracker, produce classical 4-channel songs (MOD). Then, the scene spread to the PC, where it was possible to create trackers capable of producing songs of 32 and 64 channels (FastTracker 2 and Impulse Tracker, respectively). That said, my idea is to merge all the refs from the History section into the Tracker article, as well as the content from the Structure, Scene and Popular format sections. By merging the last ones, Music tracker would be expanded and thus becoming a well-documented article. Hakken (talk) 15:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I think the articles are already to long while carring to less information. Infact, I would not vote for an reducing merge but for an further differnatiation. Also, a file format is somethign significiant different than a software with GUI whcih can be used for creating variants of it. so, no, I don't really see this as a development in the right direction for both articles. I would think thaht an reducing of redundancy and reshaping/refocusing could make sense. Shaddim (talk)

What do you think of this? Keep in mind that this was made in less than 5 mins, refs and such would be added later. Hakken (talk) 14:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I think most people looking for information on music trackers would be very confused about the content of the "Module files" section. 129.240.92.69 (talk) 15:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

So, what's the conclusion? do i remove the history section and merge all the refs into the Tracker article?. What do you propose? Hakken (talk) 21:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can see, only three people have expressed an opinion here. Two against merging, one for. Don't think you should start merging yet. 129.240.92.69 (talk) 18:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Keep separate, improve structure. In the tracker article there should be a short section mentioning the Mod file format, which links to the Mod file page (ie. for main article see). The more technical details can remain separate in the mod file article.Jonpatterns (talk) 11:25, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

References

[1]
BeRoTracker at Heise online

Prevent user from edit page

Module file editability and open source movement

A module file's unhindered editability was noted as feature similar to the open source movement.^[1]

References

[1]
Leonard, Andrew (1999-04-29). "Mod love". Salon.com. Salon Media Group. Archived from the original on 2012-10-25. Retrieved 2010-05-17. [Tracker musicians][…] see an affinity between the "seeing the music" aspect of tracking and the code accessibility of open-source software. [...] free music, free software, free advice. I think it's [the tracking scene] a close cousin of the Linux scene. The parallels are striking.

Hi, outside editor here. If anyone has an issue with the above sentence, please discuss it here and cite reliable, secondary sources to back up your claims. If the edit is reverted again, the article will be locked down for disruption. On Wikipedia we talk out disputes on the talk page rather than reverting back and forth, which is known as edit warring. (Note that all parties are beyond the three-revert rule and are hereby warned, so next revert will also result in a block.) {{ping}} me if you need external input. czar 21:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Here's an alternative, based on my reading of the source: "Tracker musicians share their source files online such that fellow tracker musicians and newcomers can observe and replicate the nuances of their compositions." (The quoted part of the citation would need to change.) You can add "according to tracker musician Andrew Sega" if the claim is controversial, though I don't see how it would be. If you want to make a claim about copyrights, find a reliable, secondary source to back that up, as the source does not appear to mention that. Feel free to workshop, but again, a warning not to edit war in the page history. czar 21:53, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

The IPs refused to propose alternative formulations and start a discussion but reverting a reliable source. Open source is explicitely mentioned and cna therfore be mentioned. Shaddim (talk) 22:22, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to try to sort out this, czar. Your suggestion seems good. We did already work out an alternative to the text that is being undone and redone several times though: "This also makes the self-teaching of music composition using trackers easier and allowed to extract instruments for later use in own songs, which was very common". But Shaddim has shown no interest in cooperating, and instead have instisted on keeping the sentence about "open source". What he writes above, about our refusal to propse alternative formulations, is the opposite of what has happened. 79.160.180.101 (talk) 10:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I will add: A module file's unhindered editability and was noted as feature comparable to the open source movement and the "linux scene" according to tracker musician Andrew Sega (while without defined open source like licenses).^[1]

"observe and replicate " is also way too weak: sharing of samples, reusing existing MOD sampels, ripping them apart and reusing them for new works ("remixing") was common with mods. Techincally unhindered reusability, that is what the source is talkign about and the reason why a comparision with OSS is drawn. (license and copyright condierations where at that time no concern) Shaddim (talk) 22:43, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

References

[1]
Leonard, Andrew (1999-04-29). "Mod love". Salon.com. Salon Media Group. Archived from the original on 2012-10-25. Retrieved 2010-05-17. [Tracker musicians][…] see an affinity between the "seeing the music" aspect of tracking and the code accessibility of open-source software. [...] free music, free software, free advice. I think it's [the tracking scene] a close cousin of the Linux scene. The parallels are striking.

User Shaddim, in the interview is not a single word "remix" and not a single word "reuse". Of course there was heavy reuse of samples - no debate, hence we have included sample-reuse also into the wp article. Andrew Sega explains the open source analogy as "see exactly how the song was put together: what samples were used, how they were played, what instruments worked together to create certain sections" (interview, line 148-151). These are all pure educational aspects and they have been carefully integrated into the wp article. The analogy is indeed right when used to describe this educational similarity. As the wp article text is pretty clear without the analogy I have left it out to avoid confusion. To understand this, you must look back to revision of 11:52, 3 September 2017, where you introduced "The file format used for saving songs is called a module file, which are loss-less and freely editable and adaptable, a feature similar to open source (software)." This was completly out of the interview context (education), trying to bend it in a wrong direction (freely editing and adapting as in open source). This is of course problematic as f.e. there is also a huge number of commercial modules. And tens of thousands of modules have been preserved until now and their copyright of course still belongs to the original authors. Hence any specific generalization is doomed to be false. The slogan "[...] free music, free software, free advice. I think it’s a close cousin of the Linux scene" (interview, line 145-146) is misleading, because it should be taken as "at no charge" and not as open source ("Linux scene"). This is obvious because at least 90% of the trackers (the "free software" of the tracking scene) were closed source in April 1999 (the period of the interview). The content of the interview can be expressed much better without using these analogies that are more confusing than helping. 2003:DE:1BC6:1601:C853:C32D:FE9B:C106 (talk) 14:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC) 3:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source

"The open-source model is a decentralized software development model that encourages open collaboration.[1][2] A main principle of open-source software development is peer production, with products such as source code, blueprints, and documentation freely available to the public."

-> open collaboration and peer production, exactly like it was done in the MOD scene (sharing of samples and remixing of mods) and as it is noted by the relaible source. Shaddim (talk) 18:16, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Not really a discussion about Open Source here again? This peer production implies the *right* of the peers to view, alter and redistribute the source. So there is a strong relationship to copyright. If you say copyrights don't matter, you are plain wrong. And regarding sharing: Sharing is when you're giving something, but using samples from other modules is not giving, its taking. You are confusing things. 2003:DE:1BC6:1601:C853:C32D:FE9B:C106 (talk) 14:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Again, your focus on copyright is your personal interpretation. the source states something else. (which was also the common practice at that time...copyright was unimportant) Shaddim (talk) 22:40, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

The source is just one definition of open source and it addresses the issue implicitly. There are various definitions by experts around, some more and some less thorough. Also this is just the introduction to the wp article of open source. You better read the full article. Here an excerpt from another definition:

"[...] programmers feel comfortable contributing to Open Source because they are assured of these rights:

The right to make copies of the program, and distribute those copies.

The right to have access to the software's source code, a necessary preliminary before you can change it.

The right to make improvements to the program." (The Open Source Definition, Bruce Perens, 1999: http://www.oreilly.com/openbook/opensources/book/perens.html)

Your claim that copyright was unimportant is plain BS:

"Under the laws of the United States (and of European controus, through the Berne Convention, and of members of the World Trade Organization through the WTO Agreeement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights), copyright is automatically attached to every novel expression of an idea, whether through text, sounds, or imagery." (Understanding Open Source and Free Software Licensing, Page 1, https://books.google.de/books?id=04jG7TTLujoC)

2003:DE:1BC6:1601:C853:C32D:FE9B:C106 (talk) 14:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Again, WP is not the long arm of law. We report facts, not the legalized version of it. If the mod scene worked while ignoring Copyright, so should it be reported. (and if you look at my edit hisotry you will see that I'm very well aware of the implications of copyright) Shaddim (talk) 17:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Dunno what you are talking now, but that does not matter. What about following the recommendation by czar and moving on to propose a specific text instead? 2003:DE:1BC6:1601:C853:C32D:FE9B:C106 (talk) 17:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC) 19:30, 27 September 2017

I proposed multiple texts, yet I have to se you proposing one.... especially as adaption of thexisting. one this would help me undrstand where your specific problem is. Shaddim (talk) 07:32, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I recommend restricting the discussion to concrete text proposals instead of having a proxy discussion on the meaning of "open source" and copyright. Propose specific text and workshop it until everyone's satisfied. The source does not make some treatise on "open source" and there are better ways to express the source's intent than by simply using the phrase verbatim, which would be more confusing than explaining what the source meant. Also, for the user whose IPs are changing, you can sign your posts with four tildes. czar 14:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

forumaltion proposal:

A module file's unhindered editability and was noted as feature comparable to the open source movement and the "linux scene" according to tracker musician Andrew Sega (while without defined open source like licenses).^[1]

Shaddim (talk) 07:34, 27 September 2017

And there is this concurring proposal with the focus on Andrew Segas explanation on seeing and learning, together with an additional note on sample-reuse:

Many of these formats can also be imported into existing trackers, allowing to view arrangement, instrumentation and the use of effect commands. This also makes the self-teaching of music composition using trackers easier and allows to extract instruments for later use in own songs, which was very common.^[2]

2003:DE:1BC6:1601:6198:F9B6:A5BF:1602 (talk) 09:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

based on your version "The mod formats are loss-less and open for inspection of the composition and reusage of effect commands and samples. This also makes the self-teaching of music composition using trackers easier and allows to extract instruments for later use in own songs, which was very common. Andrew Sega went even so far to note "striking simlarities" between the culture of "open source" / linux scene and the tracking scene."^[2]Shaddim (talk) 14:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

or as direct quote which prevents any misrepresentation: "The mod formats are loss-less and open for inspection of the composition and reusage of effect commands and samples. This also makes the self-teaching of music composition using trackers easier and allows to extract instruments for later use in own songs, which was very common. Andrew Sega saw even an:
affinity between the "seeing the music" aspect of tracking and the code accessibility of open-source software [...] free music, free software, free advice. I think it's [the tracking scene] a close cousin of the Linux scene
"^[2] Shaddim (talk) 14:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

The word 'lossless' may confuse as latest trackers can load mp3 samples, so a module is not necessarily entirely lossless. I also think that the import possibility was a better start, because it created a link to the already exisiting text in the article about loading the files into Winamp. Further why did you remove the "view arrangement, instrumentation and the use of effect commands"? That was way more verbose. Of course you could reuse effect commands, but there is not much original art in it anyway. To use the same pitchbend or volume ramping is not worth mentioning. Your quoted text is not by Andrew Sega but by Steve Gilmore. It is worded "I think it's [...]", so it is an opinion. Can you please elaborate a little, why you think that Steven Gilmore's opinion is of a huge importance? I never heard somebody say "You gotta check out these Gilmore tunes!", is he a famous artist? Andrew Sega is, so it is probably better to stick to his statements. 2003:DE:1BC6:1601:6198:F9B6:A5BF:1602 (talk) 16:24, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

MP3 export was way later, and is an anomaly. So, beside MP3 you agree it is lossless right? SEga said that: "“The ‘open source’ analogy is pretty much on the money,” says Sega" Shaddim (talk) 21:24, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Tracking is still alive and has evolved in the 18 years since the interview. We can not discount this time as an anomaly. The article is not only about the past. 2003:DE:1BC6:1601:1473:BC93:EA3A:C8EA (talk) 23:04, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

then we can clarify that: "in the high time of modes the 90s ..." Shaddim (talk) 08:13, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Sure, clarify this. Please introduce the reader about the typical types of sounds (RAW, IFF, WAV, XI, XRNI, MP3). That would fit very well below the current text (that about reusing instruments). Then you have a good foundation to add, that a module can be entirely lossless except when MP3 is used. This way you can avoid this "in the high times" gibberish, which is unprecise (you can still create lossless modules, don't you?).2003:DE:1BD2:BC01:31EF:2E0B:A887:7639 (talk) 00:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Also note that the quoted text is self-contradictory as already described (the slogan "[...] free music, free software, free advice. I think it’s a close cousin of the Linux scene" (interview, line 145-146) is misleading, because it should be taken as "at no charge" and not as open source ("Linux scene"). This is obvious because at least 90% of the trackers (the "free software" of the tracking scene) were closed source in April 1999 (the period of the interview)). 2003:DE:1BC6:1601:6198:F9B6:A5BF:1602 (talk) 18:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Stick to what is given in the source. The sources sees some conceptual nearness in the openness. I don't see contradictions, maybe only the need to clarify that licenses play no role there. Shaddim (talk) 21:24, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I am absolutly sticking to the source. And we can only interpret the source in the context of its time. The meaning of that sentence ("[...] free music, free software, free advice. I think it's a close cousin of the Linux scene") is restricted to the meaning it had in that time. And as mostly all tracker software in that time was closed source, there is not much openess to it. So this is not an applicable sentence to substantiate this open source idea. This is just a fact, you better move on and make a new proposal. 2003:DE:1BC6:1601:1473:BC93:EA3A:C8EA (talk) 23:04, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Then make a constructive proposal or i will step forward with the interpretation that trakcer and tracking was close relative to open source and linux scene backed by the source. I will will give you a additional half-sentence that no licenses are involved. compromise?Shaddim (talk) 08:11, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Because of the reasons described above I have to refuse this text. The passage you want to cite with it is wrong in itself and doesn't become better by mentioning license related stuff. Also the interview doesn't tell about licenses or absence of licenses. If you make a proposal that makes sense, then we can use it or improve on it. That is the route we can go. Do you want to force this and go back to the revert cycle? Btw. the internet is pretty large, why don't you back this claim a little more? Maybe there is something more suitable (a website for open source music tracking or something like that, so you can narrow this down)? I will be back on sunday, please prepare something and we will discuss it. 2003:DE:1BD2:BC01:31EF:2E0B:A887:7639 (talk) 00:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

In the meantime I did some research. Modsites clearly don't support your view (see https://modarchive.org/index.php?faq-licensing). And in your mentioned "high times" many packers and protectors were developed (see list with 65(!) protector / packer formats: https://www.exotica.org.uk/wiki/Module_Packers#List_of_Sound.2FNoise.2FProTracker_Protectors_.26_Packers), so that lamers could no longer rip the modules and investigate them etc. This historic evidence has to be rated much higher (especially as a lot of work has went in those 65 formats) than the opinion of some musicians in an interview. End of discussion? 2003:DE:1BD2:BC01:88E8:7F9A:DC77:DA53 (talk) 02:30, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Your presnted source is not fitting and not helpful: 1.) again, this is not about licensens. 2.) this is a modern archiv's intepretation (followign currentn copyright law interpretation) and does not reflect the usage then. So, not helpful and insightful. Also, Andrew Sega is an important voice you can't just ignore. That many protectors proofs that a relevant sharing culture existed, so this proves my point & shows that the standrd modus operandi technical of MOD is unhindered sharing: blocking reuse is the exception not the default. Shaddim (talk) 15:15, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

- deleted -