Forum:Musical Namespaces?

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Index > Village Dump > Musical Namespaces?
Note: This topic has been unedited for 3879 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

From Talk:The Uncyclopedian's Song:

We need more songs, ideas

Maybe an unSongs section of Uncyclopedia? "We will Mock You" a parody of Queen's "We will Rock You". Any other ideas? --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 16:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

From VFH:

  • Very weak for and I'll tell ya why... I really do love this. The audio is amazing. I also love in-jokes. But I do think this needs at least some expansion to resemble an article instead of just the song lyrics. Some story of the song's conception or the like. Still, I cannot vote against such fine work, and the very weak is merely ornamental. -- Imrealized ...hmm? 15:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm proposing that we set up an audio namespace as suggested by Orion Blastar, which relates to Imrealized's comment as follows:

1 - As noted, my initial audio project did not much resemble an 'article', being just the lyrics, a pic or two, and some random smart-assery generously donated by Modusoperandi. Upon semi-sober reflection, I have determined that this is for the following reasons:

1.1 - Wrangling the soundwaves to make the audio took, as I've mentioned elsewhere, a bit of doing, not leaving a lot of time and energy to "pad out" the article; and,
1.2 - Wrangling the words to fit the song took a bit of doing, as well; so,
  • At this point, despite my thinking that the next one would go quicker, the next one has taken even longer, but is nearing completion. I'm not dumb enough to think the next next one will be any easier, so I'm shifting to the opinion that audio "creations" such as these should be able to stand alone as a piece of work, without padding it out with a bunch of random humour about the tune's origins, composer, producer, or whatever. Not that I'm opposed to somebody adding some "background" to these, but I can't think of anything apropo, for the life of me; and,

2 - An UnAudio (or whatever) namespace would allow distinct separation between the "text articles" we all know and love, and "articles" like The Uncyclopedian's Song, where the text is, quite frankly, just a hook to hang the audio on.

To sum up:

1 - I'm a lazy bastard because:
1.1 - Recording stuff takes time. . . lots of it,
1.2 - Writing shit what rhymes takes time too, so
  • Gimme a break! I can't think past the end of the last verse, never mind walk and chew bubblegum at the same time, and
2 - If there was someplace to put these silly things where sensible people wouldn't trip over them, the casualty rate would improve.

I've mentioned the concept to sannse on IRC to get an idea of the technical/policy feasability, and she pretty much said it wouldn't be a big deal to do, if the community (that's you, <insert name here>) went for the idea. Comments? User:Tooltroll/sig 13:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I implemented a similar idea in my userspace some 6 months ago and called it UnLyrics, but THAT idea got shut down by adminatti. --User:Anidnmeno/sig 13:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I think I saw some mention of that somewhere. This wouldn't be just lyrics, though, but full audio. I agree that lyrics alone are not enough to warrant their own space.User:Tooltroll/sig 13:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for it, as long as it can legitimately produce good songs in decent quantity. -- §. | WotM | PLS | T | C | A 04:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Speaking strictly for myself, I estimate (based on the 1.9 I've done so far,) I'll have a new one of these every 2-3 weeks, so by next year I'll have done 12-18 or so. How many will be done by others, I can't say, but I imagine I won't be the only one doing these things once others jump on board. There's also the possibility that someone will have really good lyrics, but not the skill and/or technology to do the audio, in which case I'd be happy to do the audio portion as a public service. User:Tooltroll/sig 06:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
...and I can totally dance in a cage for the video. Hey! Come back! --Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 06:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, you silly shit. . . keep on dancin'!User:Tooltroll/sig 06:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I put my video on Youtube, but they took it off as "vaguely disquieting and icky".--Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 06:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I've taken some measurements, and the biggest cage I've got is only 4'6" high, so you'll have to hunker down a little. . . but we'll grease your naked flesh up with plenty of crisco, so you probably won't even notice. User:Tooltroll/sig 07:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
On second thought, no. I don't want to be known as the scrawny pasty white guy in a cage. Not anymore. Typecasting's a bitch. But o/t, UnTunes sounds okay. I can't see too many people contributing (as everyone writes, some people chop, and so far, one person goes all musical), but inclusionism is better than uninclusionism.--Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 08:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

← Yeah, I seem to be the only one so far, but I'm sure others with a musical bent will trickle in gradually. Technologically it doesn't take much: I'm only using the native abilities of my soundcard, and some fairly common software (Cakewalk and Cooledit). The rig we're putting together in the basement will be a full 16 track studio in a couple of months, once we get the last few bits of hardware and tweak the software, but I can't play 16 instruments at a time, so that won't make much of an impact on the stuff I do here, unless I talk the guys into participating in a track or two. . . Which is altogether too likely. Be afraid. Be very afraid.User:Tooltroll/sig 09:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I am willing to collaborate on some of this audio stuff. I can play a mean geetar if needs be. Well, I can play Merrily We Roll Along. -- Hindleyite Converse 19:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

If anyone feels interested in making an audio registration of the Malawi national anthem, I would snigger gratefully and nod in approval. Go on, you know you want to *beckoning smile* Dutchy 11:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Heh. The real Malawi national anthem, or "Papa Don't Preach"? Either way, the possibility is always there.User:Tooltroll/sig 11:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
The real anthem as referenced by *pthoey* Wikipedia was actually abolished mere minutes after the installation of the third government, when it was decided that "Oh God bless our land of Malawi" sounded too much like a desperate cry for help. The current Papa don't preach (lyrics conveniently provided on the page) is, indeed, the true Malawi anthem as dictated by the military junt benevolent Powers-That-Be. The lyrics are to be sung to a catchy tune by some Malawinian composer and later made famous by the Madonna. HTH! Dutchy 12:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


I have a strong feeling that this will load down our hosting space with MILLIONS of unwanted MP3s of idiots and n00bs repeating n00bular things like 'penispenispenis', 'i pwnzd jew' and the like. And unlike articles, we'd [they [the adminatti]] would have to sit through the entire thing before being able to decide whether it's worth keeping. It's a great idea, but it seems like it'd be EXTREMELY hard to manage. I mean, who needs an audio version of Fisher Price anyway?? --User:Anidnmeno/sig 20:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey! You gave away my 'penispenispenis' song! It took me almost an hour to write the lyrics! Bastard! /me stomps out of room --Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 21:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Wellll, yeah. . . I guess. . . But spammers and noobs could be uploading all that crap now, into the mainspace, but it's not happening. For instance, an audio version of "Fisher-Price" would (could) actually go into the "Fisher-Price" article, the same as UnNews audios go with their articles. As for judging it, the adminatti would have the text of the lyrics to look over, and wouldn't necessarily have to listen to the whole thing to assess it, just a verse or two. What I'm suggesting is a distinction between regular articles and "articles" that are "made" of audio, where the standards of content, length, etc. (of the text) are adjusted accordingly, (The song/audio would still have to meet UNstandards, ie: HTBFANJS.) I'm thinking of songs, personally, but I don't want to rule out some other kind of audio presentation just because I can't think of it. User:Tooltroll/sig 21:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

An additional thought

I should mention at this time that, even though I'm not an Admin, I'm perfectly willing to assume the duties of moderating such an audio namespace, if that's acceptable.User:Tooltroll/sig 10:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that's acceptable, Me and Squiggs are currently running the Why? namespace. --—Braydie 17:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Shall we poll for it?

Establish a namespace for audio content?

The poll was created at 05:00 on December 21, 2006, and so far 3 people voted.
If established, call it what?

The poll was created at 05:00 on December 21, 2006, and so far 2 people voted.

Namespace created

UnTunes now exists. Angela 04:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Personal tools