Talk:Analord

Untitled

I heard that W32 Deadcode.A is actually an original mix of Donkey Rhubarb from 1994. Is this true?

slicing, until you delete the trivia about the source of the name "analord" due to it's lack of evidence, do not impose your restrictions on my trivia.

That trivia isn't presented as fact. I revised your trivia slightly to be presented in the same light, but the comment about "cool" and "badass" is totally unnecessary. Slicing 19:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

fair enough, although your sense of humour seems quite dry

Types of sound, genres

Regarding edits made by 67.86.123.141 on April 19, described as "cleaning up": I'm very unhappy about several relevant details being erased. When the paragraph was written, the idea was to point out specific phases in James' body of work which are examples of or counterexamples to the style of music he's working on with the Analord series.

It is unhelpful to erase the following:

...(as is characteristic of James' stronger acid techno and of his drum experimentalism on druqks, 2 Remixes by AFX (2001), and elsewhere)...

...and then replace it with:

(as is characteristic of James' stronger acid techno and drill n bass work)

There was a five-year period between the release of the Richard D. James Album (1996) and the release of druqks (2001) during which time James made music that was very different from the sound of either release, and it is the sound from these middle years, along with the music of the RDJ Album and of ...I Care Because You Do (1995), that does not appear on any of the Analord releases so far. To simply refer to James' "drill n' bass work" is to ignore the three distinct types of drill n' bass he has molded (one type from the RDJ Album, the next from the songs "Flim" (1997) and "Nannou" (1999), and the latest kind from druqks)

If anything, what needs to be clarified is which acid techno releases are similar to the new Analord tracks. To erase the very specific references to druqks and 2 Remixes by AFX lumps all of James' drill n' bass music together, which is very misguided. The drill n' bass of the RDJ Album is orchestral trills and squelches, almost fluid, while the drill n' bass of druqks is much harder, a half-second slower, and used to form beats rather than waves of melody and sound. The difference is the same as that between the rhythm of a zipper unzipping and that of a drummer on speed. The Analord series does not employ such high-speed drum sequencing of either kind on any track so far.

Why scrub away these observations? :(

Tarnas 22:07, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the different types of "drill and bass" matter in this article. Drill and bass is a fan created phrase for Aphex Twin's extreme version of drum and bass. This is the *Analord* article, and Analord is based on a real genre of music: acid house. I don't think irrelevant details and trivial comparisions should be magnified and written about in this article. Especially not in longwinded, nonsensical, gibberish English. Joyrex 22:59, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought the descriptions were very clear, if longwinded. As for "drill and bass", why would you say what you've just said? The term is obviously legitimate, fans and critics make up genres of music all the time regardless of whether the artists like it or not, and "drill and bass" just so happens to stand for various types of "fast drum and bass". How is "acid house" any more real than "drill and bass"? And how is Analord based strictly acid house? The sheer speed of the drumming (on "Fenix Funk 5", for instance) and the melodies ("I'm Self Employed", many others) are very alien to standard acid house but very reminiscent of the classic "drill and bass" work (ha!) on Richard D. James Album or even drukqs.
     This wasn't even my concern though, my point in the above discussion was, if anything, that much of Analord relates more to James' acid work (by way of his "drill and bass"), and that the simplification of James' music into plain old "drill and bass" is misleading, that this genre label is a cop-out that does not indicate the real differences between his musical releases over the past ten years and the separate techno styles that they've explored. Which is to say, I could care less about "drill and bass" as a genre, except so far as it disguises the relevant differences between James' distinct musical styles. Where should the place of Analord in James' body of work be discussed? I think this is the primary article for it. —Tarnas 03:13, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

---

POV

Users my complain about this, but it just seemed inappropriate to have the following in this article:

...yet are still marked by the fast, choppy, multi-layered drum sequencing he has perfected from the album drukqs (2001) onward. The Analord tracks are almost all driven by very distinct drum machine beats, not couched in static but instead surrounded by waves of shimmering melody, murky synth and raw lasers, claps, and unmuddied bass. The longer cuts, such as "XMD5A" or "Crying in Your Face", are unique among James' body of work by virtue of their tight composition, akin to "Vordhosbn" from drukqs or to James' beatsmithing as "Brad Strider" on Bradley's Beat (1995) and Bradley's Robot (1996).

It's a poor point-of-veiw, especially if you're unfamilier with RDJ's previous work, and you have no idea what the hard-to-find Bradley's Beat sounds like, or if you havn't heard drukqs yet. I have revised it to reflect more on the types of instruments used and focused on it's uniqueness, rather than compare it to previous works. --Insomniak 03:15, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Looks like someone reverted it. How can something be unique in Aphex's body of work if it sounds like something else in Aphex's body of work? Pure nonsense. I reduced it into a sentence or two. I hope nobody reverts this nonsense back.Joyrex 14:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Insomniak: Your edits are not constructive

Insomniak, I like that you wanted to include information about the equipment James used to make Analord, but I couldn't disagree more with the way you went about these edits:

1. You deleted wholesale what was already written. Couldn't you have just added your comments to what was already there? I think that would have been more constructive, and then others could follow your lead and start looking more into the methods James uses to make his music.

2. You claim that you fixed the point of view, and yet there are no unusual, unverifiable, or strongly emotional opinions expressed in the text that you deleted: in fact, comparing the present work of an artist to the artist's past work (which is what the deleted text did) is what usually goes on in a summary or review essay, and is an essential part of the more complete Wikipedia entries for albums, books, and other artworks. If anything, you're guilty of improper point of view: your point of view is apparently that the description of this music should focus only on the types of instruments used to make it, while what was previously written focused on describing the sound and its relationship to past works. The way to solve this constructively would be to combine the viewpoints, not to replace the earlier one with your new one.

This is what you write above about what you deleted:

It's a poor point-of-veiw, especially if you're unfamilier [sic] with RDJ's previous work, and you have no idea what the hard-to-find Bradley's Beat sounds like, or if you havn't [sic] heard drukqs yet.

This is very misguided: what you deleted included detailed descriptions of the Analord sound without reference to past works, so people unfamilar with Aphex Twin wouldn't need to listen to any other albums first to get an idea of what the music is like. For instance, you deleted the descriptions: "...marked by the fast, choppy, multi-layered drum sequencing..." and "The Analord tracks are almost all driven by very distinct drum machine beats, not couched in static but instead surrounded by waves of shimmering melody, murky synth and raw lasers, claps, and unmuddied bass."

The text you deleted also included references to past works, which is exactly what REFERENCE media like Wikipedia is all about: the connections between different things, how one thing is connected to another, or how they are different. The reader doesn't need to have heard Bradley's Beat, but if Bradley's Beat is never mentioned no one will know that James has made music like Analord with similar pace, structure, melodies, and simple drum machine beats, except he did it ten years earlier! Same goes for the relationship to drukqs.

Then you say:

I have revised it to reflect more on the types of instruments used and focused on it's uniqueness, rather than compare it to previous works

First off, the text you deleted described Analord as very unique: out of all RDJ's music, the only really similar tracks are from the highly esoteric Bradley Strider releases. It's clearly you're point of view that it's better not to compare new works of art with older artworks, but how is this unbiased of you? Come on.

3. What you end up writing needs a lot of improvement. Your first sentence, "albiet more oriented for the dancefloor than for listening (a common characteristic of his material released as AFX for Rephlex)" is a very unique point of view... have you danced to these Analord songs? They are not very dance-friendly, and the same goes for other AFX releases, being breakneck mixes and static junk tracks (2 Remixes by AFX (2001) or Smojphace EP (2003)) or ambient and acid tracks (the Analogue Bubblebath and Hangable Auto Bulb series). Then you go on and spend two sentences speculating about what drum machines and other equipment James used:

Most of the songs are based around tight Roland TB-303 acid melodies, which are notoriously difficult to program. Other instruments that have been used possibly include the Roland TR-606, TR-808, and TR-909 drum machines, a Roland MC-4 sequencer (possible in addition to computer sequencing), and various synthesizers, including a Roland SH-101, a Fenix Modular Synth, a home made polysynth, and countless unknown others that James has collected over the years or borrowed from collegues. [Emphasis added]

The only machine sound generally agreed upon (in more than two magazine reviews) is the TB-303, the rest we can't confirm. The Fenix Modular Synth seems reasonable since one track has "Fenix" in its name, but do you know what this machine sounds like? Is it actually used, and is it used in more than one track? I can't tell, and you don't explain yourself. Did James use any computer sequencing? We don't know. Did he really use any analog? How do we know he isn't using software drum machines with sampled classic sounds? We don't, and there's no place for rambling about it here, especially after deleting text that isn't 50% speculation.

Please be more respectful of what others have already written. Try to modify it or make your own contribution before you completely delete something, especially when it has been so vigorously explained. You did a similar thing before with the Battersea Power Station article, other people had to come back and restore the old information alongside your new input. Why so destructive, Insomniak?

Tarnas 10:02, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to respond to Tarna's comments until I've returned from what was supposed to be a relaxing vacation. For future refrence, if you have a problem with my edits, please take it up on my user page discussion, not the article discussion. Thank you. --Insomniak 02:59, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Tarnas: Your comments are NOT appreciated

Let's take things from the top, Tarnas. You claim that my edits were "not constructive", when, in fact, your own edits were just as bad. My first goal with any Wikipedia article is to conform it something I would expect to see in a professional encyclopedia (you may want to refer some of these articles: 1, 2 ). Indeed, this should be the goal of all Wikipedians. If you are suggesting that my efforts to clean up an article are destructive, then I think you should objectivly rethink your position. Provided below are counterarguements for your comments.

Nothing is truly deleted in an edit. As you should know, the history of the pages will be there to extract any removed information (however trivial it may be).

The text you deleted also included references to past works, which is exactly what REFERENCE media like Wikipedia is all about: the connections between different things, how one thing is connected to another, or how they are different. The reader doesn't need to have heard Bradley's Beat, but if Bradley's Beat is never mentioned no one will know that James has made music like Analord with similar pace, structure, melodies, and simple drum machine beats, except he did it ten years earlier! Same goes for the relationship to drukqs.

At the time of this comment, there is no article on the Bradley's Beat release by Richard D. James. Refering to it in an article when an average reader, who has in all likeyhood not heard it, is bad form.

As well, the following "information" is still on the Analord article:

The Analord tracks are almost all driven by very distinct drum machine beats, not couched in static but instead surrounded by waves of shimmering melody, murky synth and raw lasers, claps, and unmuddied bass.

All very vague terms. In the context of electronic music, what is a laser? A clap? What kind of bass are we talking about here? As far as a uninformed reader is concerned, "unmuddied bass" could refer to a bass guitar, or even an Upright bass! And how exactly do you define "Shimmering"? Why don't we just put the Context Cleanup tag on the top of the article? These terms were removed for these very reasons.

3. What you end up writing needs a lot of improvement. Your first sentence, "albiet more oriented for the dancefloor than for listening (a common characteristic of his material released as AFX for Rephlex)" is a very unique point of view... have you danced to these Analord songs? They are not very dance-friendly, and the same goes for other AFX releases, being breakneck mixes and static junk tracks (2 Remixes by AFX (2001) or Smojphace EP (2003)) or ambient and acid tracks (the Analogue Bubblebath and Hangable Auto Bulb series). Then you go on and spend two sentences speculating about what drum machines and other equipment James used:

Have I danced to these Analord songs? As a matter of fact, I have! Futhermore, I enjoyed dancing to them; It's hard not to bob along and groove out to "PWSteal,Ldpinch.D", or any other track on the series. Your comments there are clearly biased, and not very open-minded at all. I don't mind you saying that the edit needs improvement, but outright removal is not appreciated.

The only machine sound generally agreed upon (in more than two magazine reviews) is the TB-303, the rest we can't confirm. The Fenix Modular Synth seems reasonable since one track has "Fenix" in its name, but do you know what this machine sounds like? Is it actually used, and is it used in more than one track? I can't tell, and you don't explain yourself. Did James use any computer sequencing? We don't know. Did he really use any analog? How do we know he isn't using software drum machines with sampled classic sounds? We don't, and there's no place for rambling about it here, especially after deleting text that isn't 50% speculation.

The Roland TB-303 has long been a staple of James' work, so we need not debate over that. As for the Fenix synth, the creators of this fine instrument are proud to have James as one of their users 1. As for confirmation of James' use of analogue equipment, Mike Paradinas has been quoted as saying:

"Richard's completly analogue now. Luke (Vibert) played me some of the hundreds of tracks earmarked for this Analord series and they are beautiful. More like SOSW & CW. But really good clear production. Lots of acid lines, but also a lot of melody & pads... Mostly analog(ue): 303, 606, 808, 909 and his collection of synths (a nice bit of chunky doepfer acid) but a few with breaks too." And this was back in Summer 2004. Older updates to what used to be http://www.richarddjames.com displayed a collaged picture of his equipment, wich clearly had photos of most of the equipment I described above. This was my source for the previous edit.

Now you're probably going to say "What if those photos wern't taken by James, and what if those arn't realy his machines?" It should be obvious by now that when paired with Paradina's statement and the fact that Richarddjames.com not redirecting to Rephlex Records, that they are his equipment. Unless you can proove me wrong, of course.

Please be more respectful of what others have already written. Try to modify it or make your own contribution before you completely delete something, especially when it has been so vigorously explained. I took your comments as a Personal Attack, and I have a zero-tolerance policy towards that sort of behaviour. I highly suggest you re-read the Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines before making comments like this again. --Insomniak 20:52, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Analord planet mu post.

http://www.planet-mu.com/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=166092&t=165057

A long forum post written by Richard D. James about analogue music equipment. After pretending to be "Richard's girlfriend", Jess the co-owner of Planet Mu records revealed that it was the Aphex Twin. RDJ is good friends with Mike P, the owner of that label, having released music by MikeP since 1993 and RDJ often DJ's Venetian Snares and Hellfish and Producer tracks. The writing style of the post is quite unique, in a similar style to RDJ's Feed Me Weird Things prose, his own album liner notes, and the poorly spelt and grammar checked e-mail interviews he has given over the years. Also the subject matter is unusually detailed and intelligent compared with the usual posts from that board. The post was signed "Richard." Everyone in the thread believes it's the Aphex Twin (even Jess, who knows Aphex Twin personally). Aphex Twin posted on messageboards when drukqs came out, and quickly disappeared. He did this on the old Warp messageboard and on the old www.joyrex.com Aphex Twin fan site messageboard. Edit: Oh look at the main page of this article. Luke Vibert's Analord records was released on... planet-mu records.

Here's a kind of summary of the post:

The price of Roland equipment when he bought it. The differences between analogue and digital audio equipment. Virtual synths should be called 'pretend synths'. Fake reverb can not beat real life reverb. Different soundcards each have an idiosyncratic sound. "Then there is the question of the physicallity of the instrument this affects the way a human will emotionally interact with it and therfore affect what they will actually do with it!" Analogue synths etc etc, until he says "im quite drunk cant be bothered to type anymore..."

This is a fascinating article nearly equal to Squarepusher's quite recent essays. Some kind of quote from and link to this post belongs in the Analord article. Deleting a link or quote of this from the analord article is vandalism in my opinion. If an editor would prefer a different quote from the article, please go ahead and choose something more relevant. In the trivia section of the Analord article, this is the perfect thing to link! Joyrex

Some guy keeps deleting a quote from this article and arguing in the edit summary box. If you must delete a quote, please pick something you think is more suitable from this article and post it here to see if other people think it's useful. Jones5

btw, the point of the quote is to give a taster so people can do further reading by reading the whole article, which was writting in the middle of the analord release time

Dear Vandal who wishes to remove any reference to this from the article without even joining in the discussion, please join in the discussion and help to pick a better quote from the post if you like. The content of this point came out at the same time as Analord and something from it belongs in the article. Please help to choose something to go in there, rather than remove all reference to it without even joining the talk page. Wikipedia policy is to join the talk page and talk about this kind of stuff! Ok, if you keep deleting it, have a laugh, but I will keep reverting any vandalism.

Analord planet mu post *continued*

Right. You wanna talk? I'll talk. First of all, let me say that from the fact that you keep stressing the need to discuss my edits, it sounds like you think I might have a point. After all, you clearly think there IS something to talk about, right?

Well, you're right. There is. I want to talk about the reason why you think that pithy, irrelevant post — that just happened to be said by one Richard D. James — is a necessary addition to the analord article. Well, I hear you cry,

• "It's in the trivia section, it's analord trivia!" — right? wrong. How is it in any way shape or form trivia about analord? As far as I can see, it's just a totally vague remark about old music equipment. What on earth does it have to do with a collection of tunes, a whole series of them, that he has released?

• "But he made them on old music equipment!" — so you can make a causal connection between two things. Well done. But that doesn't change a thing.

• "But his username was analord!! that's the name of this article!!!!" — ok. so I suppose that means I could change my name by deed poll to "Mr. cheddar" and then cite this fact as relevant trivia on wikipedia's cheddar cheese article? Cool. I might just do that.

• "But it's aphex!! aphex wrote it! omg!" — don't be a fanboy.

I don't mean to be patronising, and I'm sure these made up exclamations don't really apply to you. But let's be serious for a moment.

I don't know why you posted all that stuff guessing my way of thinking or reasoning. It's called a straw man if you invent loads of stuff then attack it saying that it is someone's view. Also I read this psychology book this one time that says if you say I don't mean to be X then really you are being X but are slightly embarrassed about it or something. Well, maybe this doesn't apply to you hehe.

Well, as the rest of your reply shows, it turns out I was actually accurate in some of these observations.

1 out of 4 to you Mr Cheddar, well done!! lol ;)

Let's analyse the quote in all its rubbish quote glory:

“ In a Planet Mu messageboard post under username "analord", Richard D. James said: "some people bought the analogue equipment when it was unfashionable and very cheap. some of us are over 30 you know! anyone remember when 303`s were £50? and coke was 16p a tin? crisps 5p". Read the full post which talks about analogue equipment here:[1] ”

I'm going to look at this piece by piece.

• "some people bought the analogue equipment when it was unfashionable and very cheap." — ok, so this bit is just stating the obvious, isn't it. it's like saying "in the olden days, things didn't cost as much as they do now." that's ALL it's saying. what this has to do with a series of records is totally beyond me.

• "some of us are over 30 you know!" — wow! really!? yet more amazing revelations from this divine prophet of supreme untold knowledge.

• "anyone remember when 303`s were £50? and coke was 16p a tin? crisps 5p" — well, not quite, cos i'm not quite that old, but I can think back 10 years and prices were indeed closer to those figures. So there we go again, yet more blatant statement of fact that is neither interesting, useful and least of all relevant. The ONLY thing I can possibly think of that relates ANY of this in the slightest to analord is that it was written by the producer, and that it fleetingly namedrops "analogue equipment" and "303s". THAT'S IT.

This article is quite fortunate (or unfortunate, depending on how you look at it) in that it's not a very popular one; read by or edited by a lot of people. This means that its quality control rests in the hands of vastly fewer people; namely the ones who actually read it AND choose to edit it (as well as the odd bot or recent changes monkey, perhaps). But what that also means is that we have to be more vigilant in our efforts to weed out the crap and write good articles. Now of course, this is just my opinion, but it is my opinion that the quote adds nothing whatsoever to the article. You get the feeling someone could read it and at the end they'd just go "oh...right...err, great." That, to me, is a warning sign that we're dealing with waffle. We learn nothing new from it. And even if we did — which we don't — it's nothing relevant to this article.

As for the link, well, that has SLIGHTLY more grounds for inclusion (which is not to say I would be happy for that to be left in, but I would certainly prefer it on its own without the aforementioned bad quote). However, as a regular of the planet mu phorum myself, I feel that that particular thread was not only

a) surpassed by many, many other threads of FAR more relevance to this article but also

b) ultimately a pretty stupid dick-swinging contest between various folk that might only really be notable for the fact that aphex contributed to it.

Given that his contributions (and the overall subject matter) were to do with the realism of analogue emulations, don't you think that thread might be more fitting if linked from, say, a Rebirth article? or the 303 one? What does this really have to do with the analord series itself? Not a whole lot. Yes, you could get into the debate over the merits of using real analogue equipment over vsts and software emulations, and discuss James' decision to do so, but again, I feel that's way beyond the scope of the article. It's not explicitly stated that that was the intention of including the quote either, so as it stands it just sticks out like a sore thumb.

You may have read all this and still disagree, but please consider my (and other people's) point of view, and try to write an article that is well rounded, neutral and concise.

And please don't call me a vandal. I'm not one. Look it up: Wikipedia:Vandalism

And I quote;

“ Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopaedia. ”

The reason it instantly fails the acid test is because my omission was categorically NOT a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopaedia. In fact, it was the complete opposite. While I may have been slightly awkward in not stating my reasons for the deletions up until now, the same could be said for you in your failure to justify why the quote should be kept in.

I hope we can reach an amicable settlement over this matter. And apologies for the length of this post; but as you may have guessed, I was bound to eventually be provoked into responding.

Thanks, 80.177.20.202 01:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleting something repeatedly from an anonymous IP over and over without joining in the discussion for months and months counts as vandalism imo. Thanks for joining the discussion finally. Even in this post it says, if you don't like the quote please let's work together to find another one from the article. The analord thread should be a link just to the long analord post. It was posted at the same time analord came out, and explains Aphex Twin's way of thinking and motivation a little bit. I hope somehow a link to that one post can be included. The rest of the thread is not relevant at all. No this post is not more relevant in rebirth. This is Aphex Twin talking about his way of thinking right at the time Analord came out under the name Analord. That is relevant to the Analord article, as you can partly see what he is thinking and a little bit of his motivation. If you leave any link or mention of this post out, then the readers are missing out on a perspective of Analord.

I hope we can:

1. Keep a link to Aphex Twin's post, and perhaps find a way just to link to the main post itself instead of the whole thread.

2. Choose a small quote from the article to put next to the link of it.

3. Leave the link and quote in, realising that it's not 100% perfect, but work on making it better by improving the link to be more exact and choosing a quote that you don't hate.

Improve, rather than delete! That's my view.

Thanks for joining the discussion.

Jones5

First of all, the fact that I am editing from an anonymous IP has absolutely NOTHING to do with vandalism. It's just that kind of prejudice against non-registered users that I wholeheartedly abhor. As it happens, I do have a registered account, but it is my decision whether or not I use it. I don't need to be coerced by other users. So leave that one out of it.

Since you're the one who's insistent on keeping the quote in, when I have explained my reasons for not having it there at all, don't you think the onus is on YOU to find a better quote? Why should it be my job? I think you're just being lazy. I think we both realise that there could be a better quote to put in, but I don't see why in all this time you haven't even attempted to find one.

Deletion is not mutually exclusive from improvement. A great many articles are improved by deletions. As I explained in my original post, there is such a thing as irrelevant, superfluous information that could be better placed elsewhere (if at all).

With regard to your views about the relevancy of the quote: the quote as it stands isn't good enough. You may think you're offering another "perspective" on analord, but it isn't presented as such. As it stands, it's a mere snippet of text with zero context. This isn't satisfactory. And again, I don't see why it should be my job to sort it out. You're the one who wants to include it; you fix it. Provide some context. Explain how it provides James' perspective. Is it just your opinion that that's what it's doing? Or is it objective fact?

Read my post again to see exactly how the quote itself doesn't contain any of James' perspective. It IS just a pithy remark, it says nothing about his motivation whatsoever. The rest of the thread might, so if so, why not include a better quote? I don't understand how you think a comment about the price of synthesizers in the old days in any way encompasses or even hints at any "motivation" whatsoever.

“ This is Aphex Twin talking about his way of thinking right at the time Analord came out under the name Analord. ”

I already answered this faulty "logic" in my original post. Sadly it seems my conjectural observations of your stance were all too incisive. And your argument about it being written at the time analord came out is moot. I was doing the ironing when analord came out. Is that relevant? no.

80.177.20.202 21:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

If you delete something repeatedly for months and months, and don't come to the talk page to discuss it for months and months under an anonymous ip, and someone keeps asking you to join in and discuss for months and months then... also let's please calm down any mean spiritedness in both of us.

Aphex Twin talked about analogue synthesis and his ideas of that against softsynths. Under the name ANALORD. Right when ANALORD came out. That is relevant. So the link to the post is highly relevant. You agree here right? Please agree here, it is so strong, how can you disagree?

NO, no, no, no, NO!!! I've tried to explain how this isn't valid in several ways, but none of them seem to be getting through to you. Just because his username was analord, doesn't make it relevant to this article! If I posted something, anything, under the name "drukqs", when drukqs came out, would that make it relevant to the drukqs article? Not necessarily, no! He could have chosen any name, the fact that he chose analord doesn't make it any more relevant. It's the content of the post that matters. Why can't you understand this? Why does the name of the poster mean more to you than the post itself? I cannot possibly agree with you on this point. If he was actually specifically talking about analord in this post, which he wasn't, then maybe yes, it would be more relevant. But he wasn't! The discussion about analogue synthesis is NOT synonymous with this album series. It could apply equally to hundreds of other artists and thousands of other albums. Please try and ignore names. I know they seem to mean a great deal to you, as with your continued jabbing at my anonymous IP (not that it matters in the slightest, but I can safely assure you that I have made far more edits and have also been a wikipedian far longer than you have), but you cannot vouch for pertinence from a name alone. The source itself has to contain pertinent information as well.

I don't care about you posting from an anonymous ip. I'm glad you joined the discussion. You should look pithy up in the dictionary because you don't seem to know what it means. You have every right to use management-speak like proactive, but you sound like a fast food restaurant manager. I'm only saying this because I'm struggling to read through your fine writing as it uses big words in damn near every fuckin' sentence.

Imagine:

The first Analord record came out a few months ago, and the others in the series are being released every so often. On an underground electronic music community web forum from a record label that has connections to Aphex Twin, people are talking about the Roland TB-303 synthesizer, which is a legendary synthesizer. This 303 talk is inspired by Analord. Most of these people are interested in Roland TB-303's now because Analord just came out. These people were more interested in VST's before, but because of Analord TB-303's are a more popular subject to talk about.

Aphex Twin decides to join in the discussion which is inspired by his Analord series to offer his thoughts. What name does he choose? Analord. What a funny coincidence. Aphex Twin is talking about TB-303's, the main ingredient of Acid House. Note that Analord is an Acid House record. He chose the name Analord to talk under. He's using his artist name for this record series to talk in public about TB-303's and TR-808's and analogue synthesis which are the main components of the Analord series.

If he took the name Richard or something else then you may have some kind of point with the relevant as a piece of cheese bullcrap. Aphex Twin deliberately chose the name Analord to represent his thoughts about things that are closely related to the Analord series.

The thread is influenced by Analord, Aphex Twin purposely chose to share his thoughts under the name Analord, and his expressed thoughts are related to Analord by their talking about 303's and analogue synthesis compared to VST emulations. As you may know, Aphex Twin changed his artistic direction from the VST kind of music on drukqs to the analogue synthesis of Analord. He kind of says in his post how VST are so different from analogue synthesis and even each TR-808 and other analogue synthesizer is unique even depending on the temperature of the room it is in. I thought that showed us a lovely shade of why he chose to go back to analogue equipment for his post-drukqs work.

As I'm sure you already know, trivia means "not important". I find this little Analord post fascinating and I automatically associated it with the record series and I feel like it belongs in the trivia section of the Analord Wikipedia article because it shows a shade of Analord that I wouldn't have realised otherwise.

Why didn't Aphex Twin make the Analord songs purely on a computer? This little bit of trivia answers the question.

The quote is harmless and is a taster to what is in the post... I think it's ok, but if you don't then I'm happy to think of another quote and I ask if anyone would help me. Well you don't have to help, but please don't keep deleting this thanks. I think your biggest problem is the quote, so I will think of ideas for another one maybe, or perhaps we can just have no quote, but just keep the link to the post. I think the quote of the article is cool, but if it will attract more arguments then I can easily concede just to keep things smooth in here if someone else comes and says it should go, cos it's better not to be bullied into it. But on the post itself then a link to it definitely belongs in this article and I will defend that until I die. If anyone has an idea of how to link to the exact post instead of the thread then please let us know or help us out if you can. Thanks.Jones5

Updated it now more to accept your criticisms. Now it is updated to reflect your strongly held opinions more, I hope you can refrain from deleting this, taking into account that you have been listened to and we worked together. If anything bugs you still then please talk more and we can revise it over and over until you are finally satisfied and it can be left alone without getting deleted by you all the time. Thanks.Jones5

With regard to your update, I think it's now a lot better than it was. You've discussed why you think the link is relevant (I still have reservations about how it applies to analord in particular, and not just analogue synthesisers or even just aphex twin himself), and the pithy, pointless quote has been removed. I appreciate this improvement, and am glad to see you have been proactive in helping to resolve this conflict. I think I will settle for this; I am still not certain it needs to be there, but for the time being at least, I have no problem with it. I have reworded it very slightly, however. Thanks, 80.177.20.202 20:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Virus Track Names

Tracks on Analord 8, 9, and 11 are named after computer viruses and other malicious software, possibly to discourage trading via computer.

This seems like a poor assumption. I can't think of any reason anyone would do this for this purpose (why just 8,9, and 11?), and I think it is much more likely the track names were chosen for aesthetic reasons. In any case, it's purely speculative and I would just as soon remove "possibly to discourage trading via computer" altogether. --Tengen 19:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Some (poorly written) antivirus software deletes files with those strings in the filename. —Slicing (talk) 21:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

That doesnt mean anything. I think that it is indeed a poor assumption, and the thought of it seems silly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.94.7.70 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC).

Series Details...

This paragraph is pretty wank: "James has programmed a variety of analogue equipment throughout his career. Instruments on Analord include drum machines such as the Roland TR-606, TR-808, and TR-909; sequencers such as the Roland MC-4; and various synthesizers and polysynths, including the Roland SH-101 and Roland TB-303, a Fenix Modular Synth (seen on the B-side of Analord 02), and countless others he has collected over the years or borrowed from colleagues."

There is no proof to any of this. RDJ is pretty close-mouthed about his gear, and you cannot say he used a 606/808/909 because there is no way to tell if he sampled or even synthesized some or all of the sounds himself. There is no way you could tell what sequencer a song is sequenced with, and there is no way of knowing if he used a Fenix or not. Pictures on albums are not reliable sources!

I've been producing for a couple of years now and while the analord series carry many classic acid sounds, not many of the "acid basses" actually sound like a real TB-303 to me. With just about any subtractive synthesizer you can achieve acid sounds, but a real 303 sounds very unique.

Either way I personally think that unless you have hard proof of the equipment used, you shouldn't post what he used at all. Misinformation makes wiki look shabby. Cheers, and this is my first post on discussion of a wikipedia article so I'm sorry if I messed up or put it in the wrong place.

Aren't the pictures of the Fenix Modular and the Roland MC-4 enough to say that he used those on his work? This isn't a big record label series, it's Aphex Twin's own record label where he has full creative control. Why would he pretend to use that equipment? The Roland synthesizer and drum machine sounds are pretty much the same as the synthesizers themselves, and it's fair for us to deduce that he used those machines in the work. If it sounds like a Roland TR 909, then it most likely is a Roland TR 909. No VST 808 can come close to a real Tr 808. The article doesn't say that he used the 303 for every acid bass line, it just says that he used it on the album, and that's what it sounds like! The "countless others he has collected over the years or borrowed from colleagues" needs a source though.

If it sounds like a 909 it's most likely not a 909. The vast majority of tracks using 909 sounds are using 909 samples (especially since many of the 909's sounds are samples anyway). The same goes for the 808 (though it's completely synthetic). These are expensive machines and carry relatively little advantages of using the real things. I just dont think it would say what he used at all unless there is hard varification on it, and I'm not seeing that here. I just don't consider a peice of gear in a picture on an album as certain varification of it being used. I know this is nit-[icking at best, but Wikipedia recieves a lot of critisism just for this reason.

It doesn't sound like samples, it sounds like analogue equipment (except analord 10).

track lengths

i tried to add these in, but the code looks bad below is the track timings for analord 1, if someone wants to add these in, i'll do the rest, using your code as an example.

Side A:

1. "Steppingfilter 101" - 4:45
2. "Canticle Drawl" - 1:47
3. "MC-4 Acid" - 3:44
4. "untitled" - 1:31

Side B:

1. "Where's Your Girlfriend?" - 5:08
2. "Grumpy Acid" - 3:22
3. "Analord 158B" - 1:40

Fair use rationale for Image:Analordpd10b.jpg

Image:Analordpd10b.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 21:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Analordpd10a.jpg

Image:Analordpd10a.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 21:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

sorted :)

Resolved

--Kaini 01:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lord9b.jpg

Image:Lord9b.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lord9a.jpg

Image:Lord9a.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lord8b.jpg

Image:Lord8b.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lord8a.jpg

Image:Lord8a.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lord7b.jpg

Image:Lord7b.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lord7a.jpg

Image:Lord7a.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lord6b.jpg

Image:Lord6b.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lord6a.jpg

Image:Lord6a.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lord5b.jpg

Image:Lord5b.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lord5a.jpg

Image:Lord5a.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lord4b.jpg

Image:Lord4b.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lord4a.jpg

Image:Lord4a.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lord3b.jpg

Image:Lord3b.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lord3a.jpg

Image:Lord3a.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lord2b.jpg

Image:Lord2b.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lord2a.jpg

Image:Lord2a.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lord1b.jpg

Image:Lord1b.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lord1a.jpg

Image:Lord1a.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lord11b.jpg

Image:Lord11b.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lord11a.jpg

Image:Lord11a.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lord10b.jpg

Image:Lord10b.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lord10a.jpg

Image:Lord10a.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Anagram

Isn't it a portmanteau rather than an anagram? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masseman (talk • contribs) 18:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Removing RefImprove tag.

Just a note I have added several sources for this article so I am removing the RefImprove tag. If anyone objects or wishes to revert, please feel free. Vordrak (talk) 19:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Analord. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100819161455/http://www.rephlex.com:80/artists/view/AFX to http://www.rephlex.com/artists/view/AFX
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120801001637/http://www.rephlex.com:80/artists/view/Aphex%20Twin to http://www.rephlex.com/artists/view/Aphex%20Twin

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:47, 12 October 2016 (UTC)