Talk:Boards of Canada

IDM

what´s with the constantly appearing then disappearing IDM tag? is it possible to get some thoughts as to whether they should or shouldn´t have it attached to them? --Lotsofmagnets (talk) 14:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

My thought is that I've never really had the urge to dance to their music. Also, I don't recall ever having seen this tag applied to them anywhere. I think I'd sooner call them trip hop than IDM. 65.95.55.126 (talk) 21:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I hope you won't take this the wrong way: I think your reasoning is poor. Firstly, I have had the urge to dance to many portions of Boards of Canada's songs. However, neither your nor my personal tastes should be a factor. The article should apply the IDM tag if, and only if, it is appropriate. Secondly, here's a link to Mark Richardson's April 26, 2004 review of Boards of Canada's album, "Music Has The Right To Children," in which he calls it "the predominant inspiration in IDM." (http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/838-music-has-the-right-to-children/) This is not to say that I would hold up Pitchfork.com's opinion above any others, but simply to point out that Boards of Canada is associated with IDM. 38.99.15.242 (talk) 20:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Uh, you guys do realize that IDM (Intelligent Dance Music) means "dance music made for home listening" right? Having the urge to ACTUALLY dance to it has nothing to do with the genre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.67.123.123 (talk) 13:43, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Quotes and quotes and quotes...

This is supposed to be an article, not a repository of quotes. Someone needs to rewrite the quotes into actual encyclopedic content and then simply reference the content to the off-site quotes. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 17:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. *Is lazy* - Nö†$®åM 00:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Time to start a Wikiquote entry. -- Shoejar^talk/edits

Done. -- Shoejar^talk/edits

Old Tunes

Okay, I've created seperate album-style articles for all the Old Tunes cassettes, however, I am unsure as to whether or not I should add them to the discography, and if so, where? Thanks. - Nö†$®åM 00:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Genre

I think that their psychadelia should be adressed 69.234.145.16 06:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Addressed in what way? - Nö†$®åM 22:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

it should be adressed in genres...most of their music is heavily influenced by pychedelic music 69.234.145.16 05:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Subliminal Messages

"Some critics refuse to listen to their music on account that they are positive the band is trying to brainwash their listeners for unknown motivations, citing references to David Koresh and occult symbols as proof."

Can anyone provide eveidence for this claim? The link referred to doesn't say that the author refuses to listen to BoC, and anyway, one person hardly makes it worth a mention. I think the comment should be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.35.249.35 (talk) 19:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

Searching Google for "boards of canada" + "subliminal messages" returns quite a few results which refer to critics/critics themselves claming that they won't listen to Boards of Canada due to subliminal messages contained on a few albums (namely Geogaddi). Personally, I think the comment should be kept. - Nö†$®åM 22:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any, can you link to some specific examples? Hellinterface 13:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• 1
• 2 (an interview containing several references to the negative responce to the subliminal messages)
• 3

Do you need more? - Nö†$®åM 22:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, none of those links have any mention of 'critics themselves claming that they won't listen to Boards of Canada due to subliminal messages contained on a few albums'. Anyone else care to go through them to make sure I'm not missing it? Hellinterface 16:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

If it's really a big deal to you, feel free to rephrase it. - Nö†$®åM 02:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not a big deal, no. But it's inaccurate, so I'll go one better and remove it completely. Thanks for granting me permission though. Hellinterface 20:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for posting on this talk page instead of just removing the line. :) - Nö†$®åM 23:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

IDM?

Re this diff - someone obviously thinks BoC are not IDM. I would say that they're on the borderline of this genre. Didn't want to revert this before getting consensus.

— superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 19:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

categorising music is like, verbal racism of some sort. some poeple say you are black, others say you are tall, and others yet, that your hair is dark and curly.

they all are describing the same thing, yet, all from their own perspective.

therefore, putting BoC in the category of "IDM" is restrictive and does not neceserraly describe accurately the band's true nature, not for ME, anyways.

if I were to HAVE to describe it in one or a few more words, i'd say they are a triphop SLASH ambient BAND.

but that's just me...

IDM as a descriptor is dead. It's fallen apart at the seams and the first wave won't touch it with a barge pole. Psychedelic, ambient, and downtempo describe BoC well. IDM is an embarrassment. Even Mike Paradinas has come out and said in public that it was only used in America and that British artists don't recognise it. Some geek called Alan Parry invented it on the web. It's so silly. My opinion is that it's a joke. Rainbowabc (talk) 17:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

i dont like it very much either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joyrex (talk • contribs) 18:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Nobody likes it. But Trip Hop is a fucking awful term too. Psychedelic instrumental hip hop... -82.26.178.32 (talk) 19:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC) It should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceefax Jungle Kru (talk • contribs) 11:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC) Time to get rid! Fake genre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.183.12.245 (talk) 10:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

If IDM is real terminology, then BoC clearly fall into this genre. I hate the term as much as the next guy, but deal with it. This is a stupid discussion. Sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.190.231 (talk) 12:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Top Gear

I'd like to note that Boards of Canada music, including songs like "Pete standing alone" have been featured in many Top Gear episodes. I suspect the producer to be a big fan of IDM as a lot of music I listen to has been featured. I do not have any references, so I only leave this as a note in the discussion. If somebody can verify this with an external reliable reference this may be added to the main page.84.104.158.81 (talk) 12:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The music isn't chosen by the producer - they have people to chose the music specially. Electronica is often used as background music on TV because it doesn't have vocals, and is repetitive, so it's easy to 'tune out' somewhat and listen to the show's presenter. --82.26.178.32 (talk) 19:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Early Discography

Many of the articles for items in the early discography (e.g., "Hooper Bay") talk about them not being available publicly, or being exceedingly rare to the point that they haven't surfaced in the public. I've been following Boards of Canada since 1998 and that has always been the case for these early works. I think greater scrutiny should be placed on even including them here as legitimate works. I've yet to see any proof that anything prior to Twoism exists in any official form. In fact, I've often wondered if they're just fabrications of the band as a joke on geeks who would go out of their way searching for such things. (What's especially amusing is the claim of scarcity, yet most of the articles actually include track times -- how is that possible? Can someone verify those track times? I highly doubt it.)

So I propose that these entries at least be separated within this article; some note should be made that there is doubt regarding their existence. Globe199 (talk) 18:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe there was an older version of the current Boards of Canada website which actually included those works in the discography; someone correct me if I'm wrong? There also do seem to be copies (supposedly) floating around of various "unreleased" or "non-existant" recordings, physical copies, so I severly doubt that they "don't exist". There's little reason for people to lie about this stuff. Why would a band invent a fake back catalog... that's simply retarded. I think it's quite frequently stated that all of their previous material was limited cassette/cd releases and only released to family and friends, perhaps sent to record lables to try and secure a record deal, but I believe that's about it. Most friends of the band wouldn't do something so disrespectful as sell their copy, or perhaps even confirm the existance of such recrodings out of respect the BoC... I dunno, but you seem a bit too cynical. You cynic, you. - Nö†$®åM 10:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, they were on the 'official' Boards of Canada web site, which is controlled, theoretically, by Boards of Canada themselves. So they have the discretion to invent and publish a fake back catalog if they so choose. Does anyone have them on record talking about this alleged back catalog? Any interviews specifically mentioning the recording and distribution of these albums?

"Quiet frequently stated" is exactly right. "Supposedly floating around..." is also right. Have any of these records shown up on eBay or any other marketplace? It's remarkable that Twoism would fetch $1000, but records even more rare don't appear at all...and simply out of the courtesy of family or friends? Sounds like a total fabrication to me.

I guess what bugs me the most about this article and the subsequent album articles, is the confidence in the existence of them. Very little mention is made that there is doubt as to their existence. Futhermore, none of the album articles cite any sources, which is one of the foundations of wikipedia. I can't figure out how to tag them as such, else I'd do it myself. Yet those articles claim intricate details with such certainty. Read the article about "Closes Vol 1" -- it states that "it was released in the year 1992 to family and friends and later repressed as a CD in 1997." Do we have any verifiable source for this information? I think the biggest question is, why were these discography entires removed from the band's official site? Globe199 (talk) 20:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Look, the band has asked eBay to delete previous auctions containing BoC tapes (Old Tunes), who's to say this hasn't happened with their other material? There are quotes that have been made about old material by supposed representitives of the band, however, you being so cynical would probably dismiss those as either them supporting their own fake back catalogue, or a random person trying to represent the band. You can continue to be cynical about whatever the hell you want, but I ask that you dont delete the album articles or delete any mentions of them, as they clearly appeared on old BoC websites, and as of right now there's very little reason to believe that they've invented a fake back catalogue, as that's fairly inane. In all likelyhood they dont even care enough about their fans to invent an entire catalogue of work that never existed in the first place. Oh, hey, let's just delete all the rare EP and LP listings or independant albums released by EVERY artist on wikipedia that cannot be found because perhaps they didnt have an international distributer or even a record deal at the same time... You're being paranoid and rediculous. (I'm NotsraM, just too lazy to log in...) - 205.200.155.37 (talk) 23:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not about paranoia, and don't worry, I'm not deleting any articles. However, this page is quite clear on the following: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." And: "If no reliable, third-party (in relation to the subject) sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."

References to these albums on "old websites" which no longer exist are obviously not reliable third-party sources. I'm not saying we shouldn't have these articles, because the albums are part of BoC 'lore' as it were. But I may tag the individual album articles as unreferenced, and I believe we should consider a similar alert in the main article. Globe199 (talk) 05:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that eBay will go around frivelously removing albums that are for auction that are "non-existant"... Closes Vol. 1 (a fake version anyway) was just taken down a few months ago... I just find it unlikely that reps would to go the extent of quashing auctions of these "non-existant" recordings just to keep this silly lore going. As for your claim that a website maintained by the band/label with a back catalogue that is full of material being an inappropriate ref, I accept the fact that the page is gone, and that it can't by hyperlinked to, however, many people have seen this and clearly created wiki articles because of it. I refute your claim that the band has created a false back catalogue. You've got no proof that that is the case.(me again, too lazy to login.) - 207.161.197.254 (talk) 08:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

We don't know what eBay does or did. The fact that it was a "fake version," as you said, just proves my point. The articles may have been created based on discography entries on old versions of the band's site, but since those sources are no longer verifiable, they cannot be used as sources. That is standard Wikipedia protocol.

I never claimed they published a phony catalog; I simply wondered about it since I'd never seen any of the releases (and apparently neither has anyone else). I never claimed to have proof. Again, I will refer you to Wikipedia's PROVEIT article, which says that the burden of evidence is on the editor who adds the information, and NOT the editor who refutes it.

Finally, I don't want to debate eBay's motives, but if they are removing auctions for these recordings, that just further proves my point: these "albums" are not authentic.

Does anyone else have an opinion on this matter? Globe199 (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Globe, You do have a point that that encyclopaedic entries rely on valid sources and references to prove their "worth", but the problem with wiki is that it allows links to webpages as a reliable source. Just because a site is now defunct, it does not mean that what was previously accepted as a "fact" is now untrue. Could the same be said for a book being referenced which is now out of print and unable to buy in the public domain? Sure, there's probably some dusty copy in a museum somewhere that only a few people may have access to, but is that not the same for these tapes? Only a very few have them, and have access to the "truth"? Until, they are officially released, there will always be disputes. The general consensus is that several copies of the early stuff does indeed exist. I do concede, however, that maybe the discography section could be split into an official and unofficial section, considering the band, themselves, don't want this stuff out in the general public. A lot of what you say sounds like a bit of frustration at not being able to obtain the said items. :) I really don't think there's a conspiracy about making up fake back catalogues. KToiBalToi (talk) 02:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough... However, would Boc Maxima be considered "unofficial"? I'm pretty sure it's been leaked to the internet, so it's got to exist, right? - Nö†$®åM 02:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nostram, after writing my initial reply I noticed there is a pretty comprehensive section with links to the full discography, and your section on the rarities exists also, so to be honest I don't think any changes really need to be made. Hope you are well :) KToiBalToi (talk) 15:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

:) I still fancy the idea of making the official/unofficial distinction, I mean, why not? I may or may not do it at some point this week if I'm bored enough :P Be well. - Nö†$®åM 07:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

content notability and references

This band's article, along with the discography and album articles, are riddled with nonnotable and unreferenced information. the level of detail makes these essentially fan sites. I really wish that contributors to these articles could at least see that this is true, and consider not adding trivial information. this is an encyclopedia, which is designed to give a balanced overview of subjects to spur further study or help someone gain basic familiarity. reading these articles, i have absolutely no idea how popular or influential this band really is. I dont mean to single them out, lots of band articles are like this. and i dont have a problem with noncontroversial, notable, potentially referenceable facts in articles. WP doesnt have a deadline for completion. if everyone who was a fan of this band took the time to either reference a fact, or remove a nonnotable comment, the article could be vastly improved. as long as fans (fanatics) govern the content of WP articles, WP will never become respectable for the bulk of its articles. i will try to improve the articles if i have time. of course, i will post on talk page any proposed edits which i suspect would be reasonably contested.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

i definitely agree. i looked at this page recently and there is so much unreferenced information and heresay on the page. i´m particularly interested in BOC´s purported early works. there is very little credible evidence to say they actually existed and i´m not too keen on hammering the issue as it seems to be some sort of religion among fans but at the very least the page should be riddled with "citation needed"s. if this doesn´t ignite a storm i may also add a few edits although given the tone of some earlier posts i suspect anything short of reverence will not be tolerated. Lotsofmagnets (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

it's not that difficult to figure out, there were tracks on the older works that were later re-released with nominally different mixes, perhaps a different drum track, but it is all but common knowledge that a majority of the works (all of which are listed) are legitimate releases. The same could be said about most old jazz and soul musicians, for all any of us know none of those albums ever existed because they are now out of print and rare as hell, and yet they're still on wikipedia? --24.79.75.84 (talk) 09:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

common knowledge does not constitute justification for encyclopedic knowledge and on top of that it is far from common knowledge that these releases existed. current references are: a website that has been taken down 10 years ago with less than adequate soundbites and an article that doesn´t explain a single connection to the band. The band themselves do not acknowledge any eary material other than the old tunes series. i would argue the wording could be even stronger about the myth surrounding these releases if not they be completely removed from BOC´s wiki pages as mere heresay. --Lotsofmagnets (talk) 12:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

When the artist isn't willing to deny/acknowledge the provenance of recordings (and it is SO similar to official releases,) one can reasonably assume it to be the work of the artist in question. That's my take. I really think we're overthinking this, and disclaimers on the page can take care of any concerns. My comments only refer to BoC Maxima and the Old Tapes. If you want to argue about the provenance of the rest, be my guest, but I think it's a useless exercise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.190.231 (talk) 13:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, i completely agree. there is enough evidence that the old tunes are legit and boc maxima is acknowledged by boc so that´s beyond question but the other material is on unbelieveably shaky ground. i´m of the suspicion that they did fabricate the albums for their website to look like they have an established back catalogue and just grabbed a few random soundbites they had and threw them up claiming them to be from the songs, but then that´s just my opinion in lieu of any evidence.--Lotsofmagnets (talk) 21:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Christ.

The article doesn't mention anything about Christ. although he supposedly used to be a third member of BoC. Is this true? --80.220.59.149 (talk) 09:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• apparently so

Mur-Écran, The Windscreen

Mur-Écran, The Windscreen on the CBC. Their music is played throughout the podcast, and mentions them by name in the last few minutes. But I can't identify just what songs.174.137.237.65 (talk) 20:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Needs to be better sourced than that at the moment its on WP:OR. Murry1975 (talk) 22:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The entire media usage section is un-refed. Needs to be cut or cited. Murry1975 (talk) 22:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

52 min:42-44 sec into the 53 min:59 sec podcast, Paul Kennedy says "Music was by Boards of Canada."174.137.237.65 (talk) 18:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, its not working for me. Any luck with the rest of the section? Murry1975 (talk) 19:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Have yet to check. Not to condenscend, but if you click the "listen" you should get it.174.137.237.65 (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

"Wildlife Analysis" appears towards the beginning of the podcast. "Open the Light" from the same album is also featured in the last minute of the podcast. Both those songs are from their masterpiece album Music Has the Right to Children. Hia10 (talk) 14:19, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Hia10 for the info. I'll check out where Wildlife Analysis is later, but I checked Youtube, and yes, one can hear Open the Light in both the end and but also the beginning of the podcast. (Thanks too for your response in the Reference Desk. I now realise that I'm already past the point in thinking that BoC beats N.I.N. thanks to you.  :)    ).174.137.237.65 (talk) 19:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Birthdate

Hello. I'm reverting the birth dates on this article to the following: Mike 14/07/71 and Marcus 27/05/73. These were the dates given on the EHX website - they were on this article at its inception and were also clarified by [User:KToiBalToi] who is a friend of the band. The citation to some random biography around the web is a case of citogenesis and has unfortunately propagated way too far. This ends now! Isopropylalcohol (talk) 14:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi IPA, thanks for the link here, some times having an encyclopedia that everyone can edit has its draw-backs. Murry1975 (talk) 17:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, one of the IP warrers has a valid point - [1] is an official source of the 70/71 dates. Clearly their birthdays have changed since they started releasing music. Either way, Youtube is a more reliable and irrefutable citation than Allmusic so I'm updating that. (Edit - I can't - would be good if someone else did.) Isopropylalcohol (talk) 14:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Article is protected for only auto-confirmed users. Youtube isnt a good source, it may be a fan up loading info from wiki and videos off thier hard drive, 3 videos for a band around aslong as BOC seems a bit odd, and they where upload on the same day. We have a week to trash out the facts and find decent citations for the dobs. Murry1975 (talk) 16:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Instead of lazily guessing that a fan is uploading info and videos from their hard drive and somehow squatting a band's Youtube channel, why don't you check your sources before breaking the data on this wiki. The Boards of Canada Youtube account hosts BoC's unique videos from the promotional campaign around the release of Tomorrow's Harvest, and the video single for the song 'Reach for the Dead', and is the only youtube account hosting this video, posted prior to the album's release. The BoC Facebook and Soundcloud accounts linked below were involved in the official promotion in the lead up to Tomorrow's Harvest. If you weren't aware of this you should not be making edits to BoC's wiki. Most people would consider official sites run by a band or their label to be a competent source. This is not cytogenesis, the EHX page that you are having to quote from a fossilised web archive is the only (erroneous) source existing for the birth dates you are inserting, however there are numerous sources including official channels of the band using the correct birth dates that you insist on deleting. The user KTBalToi claiming to know BoC is no more a citable source than any other unverified stranger. Unless you know something the rest of us don't, can you stop vandalising the data on this page? Please also stop removing one of the artist's stage names, every artist repertoire database and all records published by Boards of Canada are credited to 'Marcus Eoin', if you want to record his birth name do it as any other person with a stage name is recorded in Wikipedia, by quoting both names.

http://www.youtube.com/boardsofcanada/about https://www.facebook.com/boardsofcanada/info http://vimeo.com/boardsofcanada https://soundcloud.com/boardsofcanada https://itunes.apple.com/gb/artist/boards-of-canada/id2989314 http://m.vh1.com/music/bio.rbml?artist=boards_of_canada https://myspace.com/abeautifulplace/bio http://www.last.fm/music/Boards+of+Canada http://www.nndb.com/people/658/000165163/ http://www.nndb.com/people/666/000113327/ http://www.discogs.com/artist/307-Boards-Of-Canada http://www.residentadvisor.net/dj/boardsofcanada/biography — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.107.54 (talk) 14:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that is plenty of citations, thank you, although you seem for some reason to be pretty angry about this whole thing - next time we get something wrong and you want to put it right just comment in here in the first place and you won't have to enter "edit warring". Isopropylalcohol (talk) 11:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Scottish/British

People periodically come in here to change “Scottish” back to “British”, and vice versa.

Boards of Canada are from Scotland, most people in Scotland prefer “Scottish” to “British” because it’s more specific to their identity. Scotland is in Britain geographically, but it’s also a country of it’s own. It becomes a game of politics to keep asserting the less specific “British” identity on people from there. TrueSpoke (talk) 19:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

We generally specify the country within the UK where there is no ambiguity anyway. See Radiohead, who are described as English, not British. Popcornfud (talk) 19:38, 2 June 2023 (UTC)