Talk:Witch house (genre)

"Witch house" articles that might benefit this page

It seems this section on drag is the only existence of witch house on Wikipedia, so I figure this is the best place to suggest that these articles be mentioned somewhere, as they're relatively unbiased on what's what, and explain very accessibly why the genre classifications for these bands are so blurry.

http://www.pendu.org/mag/2010/11/08/genesis-of-genre-witch-house/

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/07/arts/music/07witch.html?pagewanted=all

74.100.203.112 (talk) 20:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Salem: NOT DRAG

Salem have claimed they are not drag and since they are the only somewhat notable artist under this hyped up supposed genre (also the ones who sources have been claiming they made up the term to label this supposed genre) , I believe this article should be deleted, asap. As it serves no purpose, other than promotion and spam on wikipedia.

source: http://www.dummymag.com/features/2010/09/20/salem-interview-you-re-not-scared-it-s-music-/

It reads as follows:

There are lots of names that have been pan handled about but you guys describe yourselves as Drag, right?

John: We never described ourselves as Drag.

Jack: I think someone said that we did but we haven’t described ourselves as that.'

Dated: 20.09.10

That 'someone' referring to the likes of writers from the media industry.

Thus I believe this is more than enough for a deletion of this article. As it currently seems to be only a push by unknown musicians and labels for their own special interest, amidst the false "hype". Diskotech (talk) 09:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The music press holds just as strong a role in the creation of new genre terms as that artists do, especially in light of the fact that artists rarely wish to label their own work for fear of being pidgeonholed. The history of this term follows the same history as many genre terms- a few artists with a similar new style emerge, and then the music media comes up with a term to describe this style. This is, for example, the same way the term "Nu-Metal" was invented. And the artist many not like their work being labeled, but the simple fact is that the style of Salem, oOoOO, and White Ring, and several other less notable bands was exactly what these terms were invented by the music media to describe. Salem, White Ring, and oOoOO all meet WP:MUSIC, and have been described in the media extensively with these terms. Thus, all three of these bands should be listed on this page, and this page fulfills WP:MUSIC and there is no credible reason to delete this page. Blackmagnetictape (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

That's pure assumption on your part. White ring nor oOoOO, have never been 'significantly' featured/covered, let alone these supposed labels that emerged amidst the hype. The Guardian called White Ring "imitators", for one (with one sentence/line in an article. that's not much of a coverage). They mentioned them very very very briefly. They also seem to have not much of following to cite, all the more unkown, thus not very outstanding/important to cite on Wikipedia for the time being. Bands like Korn (who played a big part) and Robinson (the producer for Korn back in 1994 and for years later after that) acknowledged the term Nu-Metal, even if they thought the term was "dumb". Regardless, this is oranges and apples. Korn was never accused of creating the term. Unlike with Drag, Salem has been accused of coining this term and playing a big part (the biggest part thus far, in fact the only reason why the term/supposed genre is in question.), but as you can see they have stated they've never considered nor described themselves as "Drag", as a genre. So it's been one big lie, by special interests with marketing agendas. Salem have denied any creating or dubbing of this said term or genere on record. The simple fact that they've acknowledge that music media news outlets have been lying/making up stories about them clearly makes them unreliable sources to cite for this particular subject at hand. Lies are not facts.Diskotech (talk) 01:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Salem had several remixes which they had titled "Drag Remix"(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrZJ93eCvPQ), and The Guardians article was based on a misunderstanding of what they intended by this. Yes, it seems that Salem didn't intend Drag to be a genre name, but they DID coin the term. All these artists HAVE acknowledged these terms, mostly to complain about being labeled. Furthermore, you repeat the "Special Interest" claim incessantly, without giving any indication of who these "special interests" ARE. The artists and labels have complained about being labeled, and the music press doesn't sell music-so exactly whose "marketing scheme" IS this? Blackmagnetictape (talk) 21:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Youtube video can be labeled by anyone. Any faceless person on the internet, as they see fit. That proves nothing. Furthermore, you obviously have no clue how the music industry works, do you? If these sites, such as Pitchfork, for example, made no money by doing any of this (be it reviewing, hyping up out thin air, or releasing exclusive videos/songs), then how on earth do you believe they support themselves, financially, let alone exist? You're rather ignorant about the industry it seems, unfortunately. They make profits out of this, otherwise there would be no business. This is fact. You think people do this simply and purely to run themselves bankrupt? They have server bills, administrator bills, and music critics to pay. Salem were speaking of 'drag', as in literally the word 'drag'. As they've said. Not the as a label or genre. Now you're beginning to distort facts, like the press. I don't know who "all" of these artists you're claiming are. I see no notable artists, apart from Salem. Who have not complained about the term, but simply dismissed any rumors and lies in regards to it. Which was the fact that they've never considered nor claimed to be drag. How is that hard to grasp? Diskotech (talk) 06:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The youtube video was not labeled by just "anyone". It took it's name directly from a mix tape Salem did [[1]] which repeatedly used the term drag-now, it may be true that they did not intend this as a genre title, but it seems that their intentions were misunderstood-which is a very different thing from deliberate lying. Furthermore, music websites make money from the Billboards that appear on the site-much like many websites. And the Guardian makes money through selling their newspaper, along with advertising space. This is very different that being in secret cahoots with the music industry to construct genres for the purposes of a marketing scheme, an utterly unsupported conspiracy theory that you seem to believe is the case. Blackmagnetictape (talk) 20:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. What you're trying to tell me is, anything labeled after a track in regards to remixes surrounded by '( )' should be considered a genre now? Is this a joke? Misunderstanding or not, it's still lying and reporting false information. If you were to write down false information on a legal document, one would be prosecuted. Hence why people don't "assume" without confirming anything with said parties involved. Wikipedia is about legitimate information, not about false information. Yes, they do make money by those means. I'm aware. If they don't provide certain content that can bring hits to the site, then they can't make revenue. That's my point. So there is a special interest to put out material that can garner and/or create buzz to bring more hits to their site, thus more revenue. Otherwise, a lot of people would get fired, that's a given. I would also like to add, that they seem to only add '(drag rmx)' on slightly altered tunes (some if not all are just simply pitched down). All the more proving that they're describing simply what is happening in the track specifically, which literally is being dragged. Definition for the word drag can be found here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/drag Diskotech (talk) 21:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Not all names made up to describe remixes are genres-however, this term in particular was adopted by the music media after the fact as a genre term. I myself have some problems with how this term in particular emerged, and prefer the term Witch-House, which had emerged as a genre term on blogs several months before the Guardian article was written. Most other people who are fans of the genre seem to prefer the term Witch-House as well. However, the simple fact is that this genre has been referred to in the music media as "Drag" more often than "Witch-House". Furthermore, despite their later denials, Salem actually HAVE used drag as a description of their music in general. This interview http://www.spinner.com/2010/03/16/salem-interview-sxsw-2010/ shows Salem deliberately using the term drag as a word to description their music. Lastly, "marketing scheme" implies some sort of vast conspiracy by the labels, bands, and music media to create a fad to sell music: if you were simply referring to the magazines trying to increase their readership, feel free to say so in the article-simply saying "marketing scheme" is far too vague and menacing in it's implications.Blackmagnetictape (talk) 19:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

As most genre names are made up by people in the media and not by artists themselves, and given that many artists rail pointlessly for decades claiming they're not goth, or not industrial, or not country, or not shoegaze or whatever label a given artist is trying to distance themselves from, the least interesting thing you can say about a band is that they don't consider themselves to be whatever particular genre they're being described as. While the origins of the term "witch house" are certainly relevant, too much of the article and FAR too much of this discussion page seem to be about whether a specific person creating the label makes it "real" or not. As someone who helps administer a music site where "witch house" is more widely used than "drag", you "are" whatever your audience says you are, because they're the ones who decide. This is not a "meme", it is not "fake" because a journalist came up with it first. If the genre name is terrible, it's no different than how "shoegaze" came into being - a terrible genre name created by a journalist of a magazine very few people read in order to lump together a group of artists who were creating a new sound. Edit: I'm sorry, I already wrote about this issue below, I forgot this conversation took place here. I'll leave this here for openness.69.244.155.82 (talk) 19:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Drag: should it be cited?

Woah...Really surprised there was already an article here...This doesn't seem possible... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.150.61.47 (talk) 00:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Witch house is just illbient. Go here and see the songs ishkur calls illbient (Downtempo > Illbient), http://techno.org/electronic-music-guide/ , then go to youtube and listen to the songs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.78.207.165 (talk) 15:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Funny that, it read as follows:

"In the electronic music industry, much like every other industry, success never goes to the inventor, but to the exploiter of the invention. Illbient was coined by DJ Olive, who just happens to be a laidback, low-profile, soft-spoken kind of guy, and that does no good in a world where marketers like to take credit for everything. So big, boisterous DJ Spooky pushed him aside and claimed the genre for himself instead. The rest is infamous and pretentious history. The Turntablists like this one a lot....for when the beats just aren't slow enough, they want to bring them down to a crawl. Or a slither. Like a snail across a desert. Or like a music guide maker searching for a clumsy metaphor. Why? Because it's ILL, y0! Jesus, what a stupid word. Who comes up with slang these days, anyway? How did "sick", "bad" and "ill" become compliments? Before long, street kids will be going up to one another: "man, you are a fucking asshole!" "hey, thanx dood.""

Fitting, as Pitchfork seems to be pushing this "trend". Gee, wonder why, hah.

drag/witch-house is horrorcore: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horrorcore —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.55.23.182 (talk) 00:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Please, listen to bands like Salem and White Ring, Modern Witch and others listed in this article to fully understand what is drag/witch house. --62.84.16.102 (talk) 13:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Please, tell me how a genre consisting of a majority of artist not even cited on Wikipedia, let alone even slightly known, is enough to justify a new article for a genre that easily falls amongst already present genres? Simply because it was once talked about, by an untrusted I may add, news music media site such as Pitchfork, doesn't justify it's legitimacy. Pitchfork has been known to modify/contribute articles, in order to market them "appropriately" to their wishing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitchfork_Media#Deleted_and_Changed_Reviews It seems Pitchfork is trying to pull another marketing scheme from under the rug. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.55.23.182 (talk) 18:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The Guardian had an article about Drag before Pitchfork did, thus the claims that Pitchfork made up the genre are completely absurd, especially since (as the Guardian article states) we actually do know that the coiner of the term was the band Salem. Furthermore, since a multitude of Drag songs contain no lyrics whatsoever, the claim that Drag is simply the same thing as Horrorcore-a genre of rap defined by having lyrics about horror-is easily disprovable. I also note that the citations for that claim merely were citations that prove that Horrorcore exists, without providing any evidence that they are the same genre. And while Drag and Illbient do have some aspects in common, Illbient is far more quiet and light in comparison to the heavy and noisy tones of witch house. Furthermore, the wikipedia article for a genre of music is no place to argue that that genre doesn't exist-if you want the page to be deleted, argue your case in the talk page, don't just vandalize the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.229.81.222 (talk) 06:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

It is perfectly acceptable by wiki standards to note criticism of said subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diskotech (talk • contribs) 10:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair point on the criticism of Drag as a term being criticized by associated artists, however the citations for the claim that Drag is the same genre as Horrorcore and Illbient only demonstrate that the genres exist without providing any evidence that the genres are the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.144.97.123 (talk) 23:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Unknown Musicians and Labels

Very unknown labels and musicians have been trying to be marketed on this article. Wikipedia is not for promotion. A lot of these so called labels and musicians have only recently appeared amidst the "hype" of this micro-grene within the music industry. Within months. I repeat, wikipedia is not your marketing tool. It goes against wikipedia standards. Diskotech (talk)

The less notable artists have been deleted. However, it is a cited fact that all of the more notable artists on this page are now, or formerly were, signed to disaro or tri angle records, often both. Therefore, the labels, no matter how young they are (although Disaro has been around for three years, and Tri Angle is an imprint of Kompakt, which has been around for 12 years) are notable enough in relation to this article to receive mention. Blackmagnetictape (talk) 22:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Removing mentioning of said labels, until you cite these certain releases by these certain members of certain bands dating way back when, as you claim them to be. From what I've seen, Tri Angle is relatively new, for one. Only recently sprung up. The fact that you mention Kompakt backs it up, all the more confirms that drag or witch house is simply a marketed micro-genre in order to capitalize on the "hype" amongst music sites such as the Guardian in the UK and Pitchfork in the US etc. Marketing are not meant for Wikipedia. It's not it's purpose. That's what Pitchfork and the like are for. Diskotech (talk) 06:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I made no claim that the releases of these artists went that far back:simply that the labels themselves were NOT formed "within months". References have been provided White Ring, oOoOO, and Balam Acab having releases on these two labels, as well as a multitude of less well-known artists associated with the genre. When most of the more popular artists in a genre are produced on two particular labels, as has been noted by several reputable publications, including The New York Times, The Guardian and The Austin Chronicle, the connection between the genre and these record labels is obviously notable. Seeing as most of the articles on the genre acknowledge the connection, it is only reasonable that this page acknowledge that connection as well. If you feel that the connection is imaginary, please feel free to contact The Guardian, The New York Times, and The Austin Chronicle, and should they print a retraction, the mention of Disaro and Tri-Angle will be removed. In the meantime, please do not remove information which is properly cited with reputable sources. Furthermore, your apparent problem with Pitchfork, while very valid, is frankly unrelated to this article. The genre has been reported on by other far more reliable news sources. The Guardian had an article on the subject well before Pitchfork, and the Guardian is a well respected print news publication. In response to your apparent problems with the reliability of Pitchfork, it has been removed as a reference, leaving more than enough more reputable sources for citations. Blackmagnetictape (talk) 09:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The Guardian is a well respected news source, for world and local events from the UK. It is not however, a well respected source of music news. Do not mix the two together. They are completely different departments within the news organization. They do not use the same reporters or teams, for entertainments news, for one. The New York Times, is not respected for it's music news either. Again, you are confusing departments within the news organization. Again, you still have yet to cite anything that you stated in regards to years prior. Thus the statement still holds regards to appearing within "months" time frame before and after the current hype in the music industry. You cited a White Ring release, who have stated they don't identify with the genre/scene. Their release also dates October 30th, of just a few months ago. Again, you are not citing anything from years ago. This is only recent release amidst the hype. Wikipedia is not for promotion, something which you seem to be trying to pull off on here. On a side note: the only notable supposed Drag artist, seems to be Salem. Other artist have only seemed to appeared amongst the hype or have fallen victim of labels by the music industry, and thus grouped together. For one, supposed notable artist have only recently made a release within these past few months, again, amidst the current hype in the industry.Diskotech (talk) 22:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

While the New York Times and The Guardian may be better known as sources of non-music news, the music-news departments in both newspapers are held to the same standard as the rest of the newspaper, and if, as you seem to imply, these departments were simply making things up, this would be a massive scandal. If we are to declare that The Guardian and The New York Times don't qualify as reputable news sources, then neither would most of what is cited on wikipedia. Furthermore, notability is not defined by the amount of time something has been around-the very fact that the genre and the bands associated with it have been given so much attention and hype, first in blogs and then later in the mainstream press, makes it notable. This also debunks the claim that they are "unknown"-Salem, White Ring, and oOoOO have frequently been mentioned in the mainstream media. The same goes for the associated labels-no matter how young they may be, they are their association with the birth of the genre is well documented, well known, and worth noting. Furthermore, artists rarely appreciate being labeled by others-however, White Ring and oOoOO, right along with Salem, were the bands that these terms were invented to describe. This isn't about marketing or promotion. This is about accurately describing the existing coverage already in mainstream news sources. There is nothing inappropriate about noting related bands and labels when talking about a genre, and a band or label being young doesn't make it less notable if it is already well-covered in mainstream news. To quote the Wikipedia guide to notability: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria" As is demonstrated by the wealth of citations, the genre name as well as the artists and labels associated fulfill that requirement. NOWHERE in the guide to notability does it mention any limit to how recent the subject can be. Blackmagnetictape (talk) 04:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

"significant coverage", this is debatable amongst drag/witch-house, as the genre itself doesn't seem to have a wide following. If you look up either of those bands, say for example on last.fm, they hardly have much listeners, to give one an idea of how unknown they are. The numbers are even lower on Facebook, for example: https://www.facebook.com/pages/SALEM/63673823203?ref=ts Salem don't even pass the 4,500 fan mark. Local bands around my area have more fans than that, and they're not even cited on Wikipedia. All the more leads you to believe it's being driven as an attempt to hype the very "unknown". They've only been covered once or twice on publications such as Pitchfork or NYT or The Guardian. That's not very "significant coverage, it seems. Salem seems to be the only notable band that has seem to have gotten somewhat decent coverage, more or less, and even they have not been 'significantly' covered, and thus not significantly 'known'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diskotech (talk • contribs) 07:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The existence or lack of existence of other pages on wikipedia holds no bearing on whether a page should exist-there are numerous examples of pages that don't exist on wikipedia which probably should, hence why Wikipedia is continually growing. If these local bands have received coverage comparable to Drag and it's related bands, (which have received coverage from [to give a more complete list] The Guardian, The New York Times, The New York Press, Impose Magazine, The Village Voice, Nashville Scene, Dazed Digital, and Pitchfork), feel free to add a page for these local bands. Wikipedia is always looking for more pages on any subject with significant coverage in reputable sources. Blackmagnetictape (talk) 21:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Sub-Genre Of

Darwave is more of a rock based genre. Drag or Witch House or however you people want to call it these days, consist of, for the most part, electronics and samples. Drag would identify more with a genre such as Industrial Music. Read.

I am already quite familiar with Industrial music, thank you. Please take the time to learn what both Industrial music and darkwave are. While some darkwave bands are rock oriented, many bands in the genre are synth and sample based, (ex. Switchblade Symphony http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cxiRHveka4). Industrial music is a form of avant garde noise music, and while many Drag bands incorporate Industrial noise elements, most bands in the genre are far too musically conventional to be described as Industrial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackmagnetictape (talk • contribs) 22:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Switchblade Symphony was founded in the year 1989. Dark wave has been around for much longer. Switchblade Symphony do not define Dark Wave. Read. Also, the use of slowed down vocals or samples in general is not very conventional, regardless of their being such use of techniques for decades. Diskotech (talk) 23:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I never claimed that Switchblade Symphony defined Darkwave. Switchblade Symphony were shown as an example of a synth and sample based Darkwave, which is a quite common style within the genre, thus debunking your reason for why Drag cannot be a sub-genre of Darkwave. Furthermore, adding slowed down vocals to a conventionally structured song does not magically transmute it into an avant-garde noise piece. Drag can essentially be described as a sub-genre of 90's style synth-Darkwave which incorporates elements of hip-hop and Industrial. Blackmagnetictape (talk) 04:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Funny that, Switchblade sound very rock based on here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNQ58zV-WkI Hence why 'they' fit better under Darkwave, since it has a lot of rock origins. However, Drag/Witchhouse/whatever hardly has much rock origins. Which is very much like Industrial, which doesn't have much rock origins. In fact, hip-hop has influenced Industrial acts in the past. All the more common ground. In fact, there's even a sub-genre to that: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Industrial_hip_hop Diskotech (talk) 08:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Since this is clearly debatable, can we settle on "Fusion genre"?

Sure. Although the article is on the verge of deletion, regardless. Diskotech (talk) 02:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Unsupported claims/Marketing Scheme

Wikipedia is not the place for speculation and conspiracy theories. A certain user keeps posting a theory that the genre is a marketing scheme orchestrated by Pitchfork without providing any citation of anyone of note claiming this, apparently due to the users personal belief in this theory. Unless you can provide any sort of citation of someone making this claim in a reputable publication, please keep this unsupported personal theory off of wikipedia. Wikipedia is not the place for your unsupported speculation. If you are correct in your speculation, it will be reported in a reputable source in the near future, at which point feel free to cite it. Furthermore, there is a citation to a page on Brooklyn Vegan as well as a citation to the comments on the same page. This is redundant, as the comments were already plainly visible from the first citation, especially in light of the fact that the comments section of any website is not in any way a notable or reliable source of information. Thank you. Blackmagnetictape (talk) 04:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Here you go: http://www.nypress.com/article-21562-brooklyns-vanishing-witch-house.html It's been cited on here for a while now. Actually, let me quote it for you: "About twice a year, the music press collectively decides to invent a new micro-genre. It’s easy enough. Find at least three bands that sound similar by scouring MySpace pages and blogs. Then, write a trends piece that uses their artistry as chum for web hits and temporary influence. Witch House, a bizarre blend of lo-fi shoegaze, chopped and screwed Houston hip-hop, house music and horrifying imagery, is the most recent of these movements."Diskotech (talk) 07:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

That makes no mention of a "marketing scheme". If you wish to write that it has been argued that it was created by the media, feel free, as many sources have indeed claimed that, and that claim has some validity. However, a term being invented by the music press is not the same thing as a term being a marketing scheme. Please find a source making this claim, or remove this claim from the page.Blackmagnetictape (talk) 20:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

You do realize that music blogs, music sites like pitchfork etc, and the like are, right? Do you realize labels and musicians send these outlets videos/music for exclusives, because they "market" to a certain audience. That's their purpose. To "market". Hence a 'marketing'. The scheme holds truth here, as Salem have denied being Drag and have denied even describing themselves as "drag". They're the ones accused of coining and inventing the genre in the media. Hence 'scheme', as the media news outlets have been lying. Anyway, that's their main purpose. To market commercial music. That's the point. How is that a complicated concept to grasp? Regardless, I had previously changed it to "marketing agendas", if scheme was too "harsh" of a word. Even though, it does hold basis on various levels here.Diskotech (talk) 02:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The very fact that the press and musicians have been in conflict over terminology demonstrates that they are not collaborating in a marketing scheme. The purpose of music blogs and music websites is to write about music, and while some may at times engage in marketing, this is NOT their primary purpose. Until you can find a reputable notable source making the claim that in this case marketing was the primary goal of the music press, please do not put your idle, unsupported speculation on this page. Blackmagnetictape

This is a very interesting point re: magazines attempting to create a scene around just a few disparate bands and artists in order to sell records - isn't it obvious that this is exactly how the mainstream music industry works generally?? You hype a few bands in various fanzines / music press outlets (read 'blogs' these days) to get an underground bubble forming, then try to increase the exposure in press etc, so that it looks like 'the fans' have been the ones responsible for building profile and you don't alienate the 'grass roots' fanbase. This is exactly how things like 'grunge' etc worked in the past, it's just now that most of this is done online. 'Massaging' the development of an emerging music subgenre is hardly a conspiracy theory, more an open industry secret. Why do you think bands have 'street teams'? (talk) 21:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Proof of marketing intentions:

"So what is the real story on witch house? Egedy explains.

It’s a joke.

Travis Egedy: Myself and my friend Shams—he makes house music, too—we were joking about the sort of house music we make, [and we were calling it] witch house because it’s, like, occult-based house music. It was 2009. And then I did this best-of-the-year thing with Pitchfork about witch house, and it was me and Shams and Modern Witch. I was saying that we were witch house bands, and 2010 was going to be the year of witch house, that it was going to get really witchy and stuff. It took off from there. Different people started posting about it on blogs, and it sort of became an internet meme. And someone attached the name witch house to the sounds that bands like Salem were making—the slowed down, spooky, Goth juke kind of stuff."

source: http://www.avclub.com/denver/articles/this-is-witch-house,49199/ Diskotech (talk) 06:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Pictureplane talking about making a joke with Pitchfork is insufficient evidence to describe the origins and proliferation of this term as a 'marketing scheme'. EastCoast1111 (talk) 19:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Cultural Origins

If anyone can provide any source of information suggesting that Drag began before the late 00's, they are welcome to share it. Until then, it should remain as is. Please do not change the date without providing some citation. Blackmagnetictape (talk) 04:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide a source that term Drag even existed prior to 2010? I'd like to see something like that, if you could, please. Diskotech (talk) 07:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

No need-the term did indeed emerge on blogs in early 2010, so while it could be argued that the sound predated this, saying it's cultural origin was 2010 is, from a certain perspective, accurate. Blackmagnetictape (talk) 21:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Witch house

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Consensus was to move. I'm not convinced that this is going to be the final name since there are still questions. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Drag (music genre) → Witch house (music genre) — Maybe it is possible to move this page to "Witch house" because it is more common genre name? --217.23.1.239 (talk) 09:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• Witch-House is a more common term among listeners, but among the press, Drag seems to be more common. We should figure out what the precedent for these kinds of situations is and follow that, but if there is no precedent, I would support changing the page name to Witch House. Is there anyone who knows how Wikipedia usually deals with these kinds of situations? Blackmagnetictape (talk) 16:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Related styles/ similar sounding words

Can someone point me in the direction of Witch House acts with some connection to Death Industrial, Horrorcore, Doomcore, Gothic Rock and so on. Getting bored of the slowed-down-pop-with-a-trance-beat-and-crack-hop-claps end of the scene and looking forward to the sounds I'm not sure exist yet. ty Harshmustard (talk) 17:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

This Discussion page isn't really for this, but try Gr†LLGR†LL[[2]] or Mater Suspiria Vision [[3]]. These do have slowed down samples and crack hop claps, but they also have the thicker, noisier, darker sound that it sounds like you're looking for.70.227.157.134 (talk) 19:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of this, is there any witch house-act, except for Salem, who is actually rapping? Blåmes (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, SKELETONKIDS raps so does Texture. SKELETONKIDS is on my label, Baku Shad-do , and Texture is on Aural Sects. Baku Shad-do (talk) 12:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Not that I can think of. It's not really a rap sub-genre, the rap influence is mostly just in the beats and use of samples.70.227.157.142 (talk) 03:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

This article (or at least it's references) is an internet meme joke

The references are wildly wrong. There are references to minor blogs just to show weird spellings of the artist (surely this can be done better. Witch-house is refered to as an internet joke, but the source does not state this. Instead it's a joke? about witch-house. The second reference seems to say something of the sort though. And surely it is obviously untrue. While the article seems to suggest that the term started out as a joke. Both the article and the fact that a lot of (admittedly minor) bands and artist use it to describe their music means that it's a genre.

I'll clean up those that I found. But References must be checked on this page. Ttias (talk) 16:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The term 'witch house' is not, especially absent any evidence in support, accurately described as a 'meme'. To do so in the introduction of the article is a misleading characterization. It's a term that started as a joke and then was used seriously. This does not a meme make, whatever Edgedy's off-hand description of it. If someone is committed to this description of the term being a 'meme', maybe they could provide some better reasons on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EastCoast1111 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

It is an actual genre, it was originally known as drag, I added sources. Travis just started a meme which caused a name change for the genre. Baku Shad-do (talk) 12:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

It was never known as "Drag", that was simply a term that sprang up sporadically amongst people at the Guardian early on, but "Witch house", as the term, was already in "effect" and had been used prior to the word "drag". Plus, "drag" would be more of a technique than a genre. When people refer to a tune as "drag", they mean it has been pitched down. Salem would only use the term "drag" in their mixtapes, because they would mix int various tunes, that they intentionally slowed down, hence the term "drag". People took it as something else, when in reality, they were simply describing a technique to a certain mix in a certain mixtape. Diskotech (talk) 07:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Some thoughts by someone who tends not to edit pages, hopefully someone will get some value out of them. Musical genre names have always been a function of media, and reducing them to "marketing pigeonholing" overlooks the fact that some sort of taxonomy is useful: if I like band A, will I like band B? And while some of these genre names such as witch house (shoegaze comes to mind, too) are awful, musical reportage is filled to the brim of bands angrily protesting that they're not [this genre] or [that genre]. There is nothing new about this, and witch house isn't remotely the first genre from which artists have tried to desperately run from. Take "shoegaze" again - like many genres, the name doesn't describe the music, or even anything around the surrounding visual art - it was initially one reporter's reaction to the fact that some of the initial bands making this sort of sound were shy around large groups of people and/or used a so many pedal effects that they weren't engaging the audience like the reporter felt a rock band should at a paid gig. Or take "rock", which was originally "rock 'n roll" which originally described a particular rhythm rather than a genre, and much of what is called "rock" music today has never been associated with this rhythm. Language and culture moves on without waiting for anyone to "correct" it, and genre names are no different. While the witch house article needs to reference drag only because many artists and fans have used both terms, and while artist protest against the genre name may be of historical interest and relevant to the page, these same protestations have no relevance on the validity of the genre's existence or the the validity of calling a particular style of music "drag" as opposed to "witch house". I feel there is far too much attention paid in this article to the fact that specific bands have tried to distance themselves from the genre name, and too much effort is expended on trying to marginalize the name by calling it an "internet joke". Again, language change and cultural niches don't wait for an official naming taxonomy to catch up with them. Thanks. 69.244.155.82 (talk) 12:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Diskotech refuses to take it to the talk page

User Diskotech reverts edits constantly without discussing it on the talk page as requested.

One person describing the term in an offhand comment in an interview does not mean this term is a 'meme'. Bolding this one-time description by a person who uses the term 'Witch House' but is hardly an authoritative voice on whether the term is a 'meme' solves noting and doing so rather than discussing this on the talk page is poor form; perhaps we can have a better resolution that this.

'Began to actively continue' is incredibly poor phrasing and is borderline meaningless. Absent a reasonable position that says why this kind of phrasing is necessary, 'continued' suffices. EastCoast1111 (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I have never refused to discuss on the talk page, in fact, i've discussed half of what is discussed on this very same page. Please refrain from making false accusations in the future. This is simply becoming a personal attack on me and completely distracts from the article itself. Now pertaining to the actual issue, this "one person" describing the term offhand is actually Travis Edgedy aka Pictureplane. Travis invented the term, he is credited for creating it via various resources. So to say the founder of the term and one of the main driving forces of the term, has no say no "authoritative" voice on the term is beyond ridiculous. The term wouldn't exist in the music industry without him. How about you actually READ the articles that are cited and learn up on your history in regards to this "genre", before you actually decide to edit articles without truly grasping the whole article and sources found on here? I suggest you read up on what exactly an internet meme is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_meme as well as what a sales pitch is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sales_pitch (which is what he did, he pitched the term to Pitchfork) and don't forget what marketing is as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marketing This is what Pitchfork is, they are a music media marketing hub. Promotion agencies send them artist news scoops and early access to soon to be released releases (they literally make deals ahead of time for exclusives etc etc), in order to promote/market an artist and get the word out etc. Learn how the music industry actually works before you assume too much. Diskotech (talk) 08:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that using the term "internet meme" is used in the context of how the term went viral and evolved into a supposed sub-genre of industrial music (although debatable due to some strange circumstances). Diskotech (talk) 08:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

You haven't 'discussed' it on the talk page so much as make it clear you're committed to your edits even when nobody else agrees with them. I understand perfectly that the person who invented the term is an authority on how he made it up, but that doesn't make him an authority on 'memes'; it's entirely possible for him to describe how the term has been taken up by others incorrectly. Also, the fact that one aspect of Pitchfork is marketing doesn't mean that every term they use is intentionally and solely for the purposes of marketing. Anyway, it's clear you want ownership of this article, have fun with it then! EastCoast1111 (talk) 16:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, I ask you refrain from making personal attacks on me. It contributes nothing. Making vague abstract comments such as "nobody else agrees with you" is subjective, I may add, and complete irrelevant to the actual facts. I never stated he is the authority on "memes", but if you actually bothered to read what a meme is, you'd see it is a proper label of the term from when it was "evolving". Hence why Pictureplane even dubbed it an internet meme. Moving on, I never stated every term Pitchy uses is for marketing purposes, but as Pictureplane pointed out, he specifically pitched it to pitchfork as follows: "It was 2009. And then I did this best-of-the-year thing with Pitchfork about witch house, and it was me and Shams and Modern Witch. I was saying that we were witch house bands, and 2010 was going to be the year of witch house, that it was going to get really witchy and stuff. It took off from there." That is pitching an idea to a an entity, in order to get a certain image/idea/product/agenda across, which Pictureplane was somewhat successful at doing, to various extent anyway. It sort of mutated in various aspects from then on when it became an internet meme (a concept that spreads via the Internet), which various music blogs exploited to their liking, and eventually evolved into this supposed sub-genre of industrial music. Diskotech (talk) 09:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Administrator review

99.132.67.105 (talk) has had his actions reported to the administrators, for review, and has been notified accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baku Shad-do (talk • contribs) 17:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Clean Up

I have gone through and removed massive amounts of over the top POV statements all of which appear to be unsupported by any of the citations provided. It is clear this article is being edited by people with major conflicts of interest who are here to create there own version of events that are not supported by reliable sources. Ridernyc (talk) 15:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I've just removed a load of blogs posing as references to support that "arguably not a real name for the genre" statement at the end of the criticism section. That kind of writing ("some argue" meaning "I think") is not acceptable here, and aggregating patterns you think you notice amongst blogs is original research, not reliable sourcing. - filelakeshoe 21:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I have once again rolled this article back to the state it was at after my last clean up after the last edit war. One user seems to ahve a very strong agenda with this article and needs to discuss his massive changes BEFORE he makes them. Ridernyc (talk) 01:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Chillwave as Influence

C'mon witch house is like the bastard child of chillwave. It should at the very least be listed.

Witch House is still alive and didn't die in 2010

Can we please move the page forward about 4 years? I'm so sick of this shit. People love being stuck in that past and can't accept the changes and movement that have been going on during the past year. Half the artists mentioned don't even make witch house any more. This page is a joke and only serves as a relic to a very active genre. How can you have no mention of the Russian wave of witch house? At least make some kind of criteria for adding new artists like a set number of releases/EPs whatever before they get posted.

Nightmaresand808s (talk) 07:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC) NIGHTMARES AND 808s

Seems to me that you know things about witch house...so why don't you add it yourself? It would probably be a good idea not to delete the extant band names, but perhaps you can point out which albums or other releases fall under this particular genre so that people who are interested in it such as myself can benefit from your knowledge. Tell us about the Russian wave, please. As I pointed out in my own comment, I make music myself that seems to be exactly what witch house is described to be and I've only just found out that yes, there actually is a name for it that people may recognize. So I'm quite interested...Psychedilly (talk) 00:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Unfortuntately me and others have tried to update the page but it reverts back to the original version soon after. My only hope is that people use this as a history lesson and search out more on their own from here. - NIGHTMARES AND 808s

Picture removed

The picture removed has zero relation with any of the content. End of story. Furthermore, cover art on albums does not give any insight into a music genre sound, nor does it have any notable reference here.

Slant Reference

I am a little confused on how this is considered a reliable source, and even further confused on how a few of the bands listed are notable witch house acts, most specifically Chvrches.

http://www.slantmagazine.com/music/review/chvrches-the-bones-of-what-you-believe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.142.152 (talk) 18:43, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I looked at the source previously and couldn't find anything that would make it not reliable. It's notable enough to have a page here (Slant Magazine), which specializes in entertainment, including music. This seems to meet WP:V to me. If you believe the source shouldn't be relied upon for this information, WP:RS/N might be the best place to go, where the experts for this sort of thing live.  Adrian^[232] 21:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

witch house is not really a music genre, it's one of those "aesthetic movement" buzzwords like chillwave and seapunk

these labels are really just umbrella buzzwords that scoop up various artists and try to tag them as one thing while pushing this occult aesthetic on it even if there's nothing occult about their content. for example some of the already existing subgenres that can be applied to witch house artists include: chopped and screwed, glitch hop and glitch r&b, ambient industrial, trap&b, synthwave, synthpop, electro house, noise pop

same thing happens with "chillwave" except that one is more new wave, synthwave, post-disco

all of these related wiki pages are full of drastically different sounding artists representing various subgenres

22, A Million

I wouldn't call Bon Iver a "witch house", "drag", etc artist but the witch house aesthetic in 22, A Million is undeniable given the typography choices and occult references in the track titles, if there are no objections I think he should be listed some where appropriate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.168.209.68 (talk) 23:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Bon Iver is a folk artist. He isn't relevant to this conversation at all. Anfwepgnrwfinre (talk) 17:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

The Knife

An IP has come in more than once to remove the cited band The Knife from the genre. I don't necisarily disagree with them, but if a source is referring to them as part of that sound/movement, that is their interpretation. Unless there are further published arguments against it, I do not think it should be removed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Why ic3peak has been removed?

Just listen their old albums you gonna see. It's even included on the their Wiki profile. Pp.amorim (talk) 00:17, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Goth subculture

Is this a genre of gothic music? 47.36.25.163 (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Notable artists

There are many artists that are relevant to this conversation, and should be added to the article. 100 Gecs, Sematary/Ghost Mountain, and Clams Casino/Lil B could all be qualified as 'witch house'. Anfwepgnrwfinre (talk) 17:14, 28 January 2022 (UTC)